Question Ivermectin has been shown very effective against Covid-19 infections - why is no one talking about it ?

Jul 2, 2020
246
29
130
Effective Covid-19 treatment could alreay be available. See youtube video interview with Australian Professor Thomas Borody - link at very end - he provides his opinion on why an already effective treatment has been sidelined.

Ivermectin (IVM) has been shown very effective in reversing Covid-19 within 24 - 48 hours in US Florida hospital patients whose oxygen intake was down and eliminating Covid-19 shortly after.

“It has very few side effects, and is a real killer of coronavirus,” Australian Professor Borody

This is an old well established drug widely used on people.

IVM has completed some Covid-19 human trials with up to 100% success rate in infected patients and removing Covid-19 within approx 5 days

Lab studies in vitro have shown IVM kills Covid-19 in 24-48 hours.

It has been used in 4 USA Florida Hospitals on patients with Covid-19 with a paper published. The results indicate IVM was very successful in reducing mortality of patients with severe of Covid-19 - 50% compared to the control group - improvement and stablization with 1-2 days

Ivermectin (IVM), a macrocyclic lactone of Nobel Prize-winning distinction has been given to humam patients in USA hospitals but its success has not been discussed

A retrospective study of 173 COVID-19 patients treated with IVM in four Florida hospitals at a dose of 200 µg/kg yielded a 40% reduction in mortality compared with 107 controls (15.0% vs. 25.2%, p=0.03). Mortality was cut by 52% with IVM for patients having severe pulmonary disease (38.8% vs. 80.7%, p=0.001). Stabilization and then improvement over 1-2 days frequently occurred for patients who had rapidly deteriorating oxygen status.

It is proposed that higher doses of IVM could yield sharply greater clinical benefits. In several clinical studies, IVM at doses of up to 2,000 µg/kg, ten times that used in the Florida study, were well tolerated.



However in the US there has been a reluctance to follow up on the human treatment results despite the paper published

See study below



"if their oxygen requirements are less than 50%, I’ve had nearly a 100% response rate, they all improve, if they’re on more oxygen than that, then it becomes a little more varied, some people, they don’t respond anymore because they are too far advanced,” explained Dr. Rajter.

The local health authority, Broward Board of Health, recently approved Dr. Rajter’s protocol for use in all of their hospitals


These USA results have in replicated in China, Iraq and Bangladesh

View the links below for info and clinical trials and their status from completed phase 1 etc+






A similar study on Ivermectin was conducted by a research team of Monash University in Australia and also showed positive results
An anti-parasitic drug repurposed for Covid-19 treatment has helped patients fully recover from the infection in just four days.
The medicine can kill the novel Sars-CoV-2 coronavirus in just 48 hours.
Prof Tarek Alam, a doctor of internal medicine and respiratory diseases who leads the clinical trial program at Bangladesh Medical College (BMC), said: “Sixty coronavirus patients were tested. Taking doxycycline with a single dose of ivermectin reduced the patient's symptoms by 50% in just 3 days, and they were completely virus-free in 4 days.
“If we had applied for this medicine earlier, we would not have lost so many people in the country,” he added.
A similar study on Ivermectin was conducted by a research team of Monash University in Australia and also showed positive results.
On April 3 this year, the journal "Antiviral Research" showed that infecting the Vero-hSLAM cell line with the novel coronavirus and applying Ivermectin reduced the amount of virus in the cell line by up to 5,000 times in 48 hours.
The scientists said Ivermectin is an approved anti-parasitic drug that has also been shown to be effective in vitro against a broad range of viruses including HIV, Dengue, Influenza, and the Zika virus.
“Ivermectin is very widely used and seen as safe medicine.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=F6A6RFDprIs


Published on Aug 7, 2020
Australian Gastroenterologist Professor Thomas Borody says Ivermectin used in conjunction with two other drugs is making it look like “corona is very simple to kill”. The drug is Federal Drug Agency and World Health Organisation approved; it is widely used for parasitic infections and is being cited and prescribed as treatment against the deadly coronavirus. “It has very few side effects, and is a real killer of coronavirus,” Professor Borody told Sky News host Chris Kenny.





Why are we ignoring the potential cure under our noses?
Rebecca Weisser

8 August 2020 9:00 AM

....Covid cure that cut the mortality rate of even the sickest patients by 50 per cent..... so safe that it was already being used in aged-care homes to treat nothing more threatening than scabies and cost next to nothing.

On 3 April, Dr Kylie Wagstaff, working at the Monash University Biomedicine Discovery Institute, with a team from the Peter Doherty Institute of Infection and Immunity, the University of Melbourne and the Royal Melbourne Hospital, announced that the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin kills the Sars-2 virus in a petri dish within 48 hours.

Ivermectin is already considered a wonder drug. In 2015, William Campbell and Satoshi Omura shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for its discovery, which has transformed the lives of millions of people in Africa, Asia and Latin America, since its introduction in 1987 to treat a range of parasite infections from head lice to river blindness.

In America, it took only 48 hours after Wagstaff’s announcement for doctors to start using the drug, off-label, and saving lives....the use of the drug in Broward County Medical Centre, with extraordinary results.....and mortality dropped by 48 per cent; even in patients on high-flow oxygen or already intubated...

The results everywhere have been extremely encouraging, Wagstaff says. Dr Tarek Alam of the Bangladesh Medical Centre used ivermectin and the antibiotic doxycycline to treat over 400 patients and 98 per cent were cured within 4 to 14 days. In another study Chinese and Bangladeshi researchers trialled the same two drugs on mild to moderate Covid-19 patients .....In the Dominican Republic, the largest private health network treated 1,300 patients with ivermectin of which 99 per cent were cured and the average duration of infection was more than halved from 21 days to 10 days.

Since Wagstaff’s announcement, 33 clinical trials have commenced in Argentina, Egypt, Iraq, Italy, Israel, Mexico, Colombia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Spain, India, Thailand, Brazil, Singapore, the US, but not a single one in Australia. Wagstaff has raised the money for a randomised, controlled, double blind trial — the gold standard of proof in medical research — from the Leona and Harry Helmsley Charitable Trust, in New York, but understaffed and overworked, she is still weeks to months away from being ready to start recruiting patients.

......ivermectin is on the WHO’s list of essential medicines yet there is a strange lack of any intellectual curiosity on the part of the pharma-government-academia industrial complex, editorialises Trial Site News, a digital media site dedicated to unbiased coverage of clinical research trials......

[said there has been talk] about developing Covid drugs and vaccines at warp speed but while its full steam ahead for patented vaccines, [no one] has not been able to blast through the roadblocks [for] off-patent drugs face. [Dr] Rajter said that just getting the results of his ground-breaking study published has been a battle [major pharmaceutical companies will lose a lot of money if ivermectin becomes the standard of care.]

Exacerbating the damage done by the cosy relationship between pharmaceutical companies, major academic medical centres and regulators, social media giants have become the self-appointed censors of this establishment elite. CEO Susan Wojcicki says YouTube takes down anything that is ‘medically unsubstantiated’ or goes against the recommendations of the WHO. Twitter and Facebook have followed suit. Videos made by doctors and scientists discussing the research on ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine have been taken town. Even videos on vitamin D — whose major source is sunshine — were censored. Yet Fiona Mitchell wrote in the Lancet that a growing body of evidence links Covid-19 mortality with vitamin D deficiency. Professor Rose Anne Kenny of Trinity College Dublin says public health bodies should be recommending the entire population take vitamin D supplements during the pandemic and it should be given to all aged care residents unless there is an extremely good reason not to do so.

When Wagstaff made her dramatic announcement on 3 April, only 28 Australians had died of Covid. Now, 232 have died. The vulnerability of older Australians is stark — only 9 of those who died were under 60. Worse, there are 1,435 active cases connected to aged care facilities. Without ivermectin, these people are in mortal danger. In NSW, almost 50 per cent of infected age care patients died.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2, 2020
246
29
130
Randomized Controlled Ivermectin Study Results Confirms PI Hypothesis: Drug Effective Against COVID-19

Aug 28, 2020 | Blog, COVID-19, Egypt, Ivermectin,

This study sought to determine if ivermectin could serve as a prophylactic for those individuals who had been exposed to someone in their household that was tested positive for COVID-19. To participate, the subject had to be between the ages of 16 and 70, healthy and confirm that a family member was infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19.

these findings have not been peer reviewed nor published. TrialSite offers a summary and hence no scientific conclusion can be made here. And as a reminder for those living in various jurisdictions, these study results, even if correct, aren’t necessarily relevant in other national jurisdictions.

The Zagazig University results reveal that out of 203 subjects in the ivermectin arm 15 contacts (7.4%) developed COVID-19 as compared to 59 (58.4%) in the non-intervention arm. Note, all of the subjects were symptomatic based on the study protocol, again here. According to the lead author, the difference between the ivermectin arm and the non-intervention arm was “highly significant” (p<0.001).

 
Jul 2, 2020
246
29
130
Jan 18, 2021
1
1
10
Randomized Controlled Ivermectin Study Results Confirms PI Hypothesis: Drug Effective Against COVID-19

Aug 28, 2020 | Blog, COVID-19, Egypt, Ivermectin,

This study sought to determine if ivermectin could serve as a prophylactic for those individuals who had been exposed to someone in their household that was tested positive for COVID-19. To participate, the subject had to be between the ages of 16 and 70, healthy and confirm that a family member was infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19.

these findings have not been peer reviewed nor published. TrialSite offers a summary and hence no scientific conclusion can be made here. And as a reminder for those living in various jurisdictions, these study results, even if correct, aren’t necessarily relevant in other national jurisdictions.

The Zagazig University results reveal that out of 203 subjects in the ivermectin arm 15 contacts (7.4%) developed COVID-19 as compared to 59 (58.4%) in the non-intervention arm. Note, all of the subjects were symptomatic based on the study protocol, again here. According to the lead author, the difference between the ivermectin arm and the non-intervention arm was “highly significant” (p<0.001).


The medicine can kill the novel Sars-CoV-2 coronavirus in just 48 hours.
Prof Tarek Alam, a doctor of internal medicine and respiratory diseases who leads the clinical trial program at Bangladesh Medical College (BMC), said: “Sixty coronavirus patients were tested. Taking doxycycline with a single dose of ivermectin reduced the patient's symptoms by 50% in just 3 days, and they were completely virus-free in 4 days.
“If we had applied for this medicine earlier, we would not have lost so many people in the country,” he added.
A similar study on Ivermectin was conducted by a research team of Monash University in Australia and also showed positive results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: adam
Jul 2, 2020
246
29
130
Ivermectin updates. Please review the data and seek applicable medical advice as required

The WHO asked Liverpool University Phd and his team to review Ivermectin effectiveness based on the existing studies. The conclusions were very favorable

The later video below reviews Ivermectin.

According to Drs using Ivermectin themselves and on patients randomized control trials have shown Ivermectin to be 80% effective in all stages of treating or stopping catching Covid-19 except at very late stage Covid-19. No treatment is to date effective against very late stage Covid-19

Ivermectin is taken weekly or every 2 weeks for up to 10 weeks or as a one off treatment when going to a high risk area. Doses of 12mg were mentioned. In some studies in India it was taken monthly.

The Drs set out that it can be taken with or after vaccination with no issues. One of the Drs makes clear he takes Ivermectin and has been vaccinated. He took Ivermectin after vaccination when travelling

Indications are Ivermectin remains in the body (fat or liver) for about 17 days after being taken

It is set out that the mass test use in various Indian cities eliminated Covid-19 totally.

One Belgian researcher has set out that widespread use of Ivermectin could eliminate Covid-19 in about 6 weeks

Given how Ivermectin works it is expected that Ivermectin would be effective against all variants of Covid-19

See video below for data links and info set out above

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OY8QV7lnFFo


Ivermectin Trial Studies and info links below
 
Jul 2, 2020
246
29
130
Late Feb 2021 BIRD Panel - sweeping recommendations for the immediate global use of ivermectin.

Ivermectin Safety


A World Health Organization essential medicine since 2019, Ivermectin has been used for decades now to fight parasites. As noted above Merck has donated billions of doses of this medicine.

British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) panel included dozens of multinational scientists and doctors discussing the mounting data points and evidence supporting the use of Ivermectin for COVID-19 cases. The large, diverse group reviewed the evidence associated with ivermectin to potentially prevent and treat COVID-19, with a goal of reaching a consensus and making recommendations for further investigation and/or use.

The group issued sweeping recommendations for the immediate global use of ivermectin. The findings are now in the hands of the World Health Organization (WHO).



WHO-sponsored review of ivermectin trials indicates 83% reduction in covid mortality. Dr Andrew Hill of the Department of Pharmacology at the University of Liverpool (UK) is currently performing a WHO-sponsored review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of ivermectin against covid.

In the following 12-minute video, Dr Hill is presenting his preliminary results, which indicate a highly significant 83% reduction in covid mortality (95% CI 65%-92%).

This result is based on in-hospital trials, so it does not yet take into account early ambulatory and prophylactic treatment. The authors of the review intend to include three more trials, due to be published sometime in January, before providing a final conclusion. At the end of his presentation, Dr Hill describes low-cost ivermectin as a potentially “transformative treatment” against covid.

Update January 20: The final analysis has been published as a preprint on Research Square. It found a 75% reduction in covid mortality and will be continually updated with future trial results.





Ivermectin Safety

A World Health Organization essential medicine since 2019, Ivermectin has been used for decades now to fight parasites. As noted above Merck has donated billions of doses of this medicine.

February 4 press release from Merck is raising yet more questions about why research money is not going to ivermectin and why this seemingly effective drug is so underutilized, even in North American research.

In the statement Merck, one of America’s great pharmaceutical companies and manufacturer of the Stromectol/Mectizan branded versions of ivermectin, claims that: 1) there is no evidence that ivermectin works for COVID-19, and 2) there is a “concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies,” suggesting that the drug may be unsafe.

Concern two is odd, given that Merck has
proudly donated billions of doses of ivermectin to fight river blindness. On its website, Merck boasts that its own Dr. William Campbell first suggested the use of ivermectin for river blindness in the late 1970s and that from 1987 to today Merck has committed to donating, “as much as needed, for as long as needed” to eliminate river blindness. The firm notes that the ivermectin program, “reaches more than 300 million people in the affected areas annually, with more than 4 billion treatments donated since 1987.” And according to the August 2020 version of NIH’s COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines, ivermectin “has demonstrated an excellent safety profile” in past use. The Merck press release goes on to intricately detail ivermectin’s potential adverse reactions, but in the context of the NIH’s view and the efficacy issues touched on below, this focus has an element of strategic scaremongering.

Could it be because not only did they just announce their intention to acquire a company for $425 million to develop a novel COVID-19 treatment but they also recently received $356 million from the government to support the effort?


While most media platforms wouldn’t go near the ivermectin story for whatever reason, TrialSite objectively tracked study after study—why wouldn’t low cost, generic repurposed drugs also be considered along with novel approaches? Along with methodically tracking federal government-related grants and capital injections as Operation Warp Speed launched, TrialSite in parallel locked in on ivermectin studies—could efficacy be proven? Starting later in April through today, study results accumulated. With over three dozen clinical trials–from Bangladesh, Egypt, Iraq and India—physician/research groups emerged to conduct meta-analyses—that is a statistical analysis that combines the result of multiple clinical trials.

This class of research helps when there are multiple studies addressing the same question, noting that each individual underlying study reporting measurements certainly include some degree or error and potential for bias. The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), led by Drs. Paul E. Marik and Pierre Kory, was the first group to take on the growing number of ivermectin studies targeting COVID-19. The FLCCC meta-analysiswas followed by two comparable efforts in the United Kingdom—oneby Dr. Andrew Hill, affiliated with the University of Liverpool and the otherby Dr. Tess Lawrie with The evidence-based Medicine Consultancy Ltd. The Merck press release completely and utterly conflicts with these meta-analyses and over 50 studies conducted worldwide.

Ivermectin Safety

A World Health Organization essential medicine since 2019, Ivermectin has been used for decades now to fight parasites. As noted above Merck has donated billions of doses of this medicine. But how times have changed.

As shared by one of the world’s top experts in the ivermectin field, Dr. Carlos Chaccour, the drug is certainly safe, “When used for the current indications, at the currently approved doses, ivermectin is a very safe drug. To date, more than three billion treatments have been distributed in the context of the Mectizan Donation Program alone with an excellent safety profile. Most adverse reactions are mild, transitory and associated with parasite death rather than with the drug itself.” Dr. Chaccour, who recently completed an ivermectin and COVID-19 study producing modest results, was also featured on TrialSiteand most certainly has represented a voice of caution when it comes to ivermectin as applied to COVID-19.

 
Jul 2, 2020
246
29
130
Ivermectin has been proven in trials to stop 100% of high risk treated healthcare workers catching Covid-19 while 60% in the control group became infected. It is cheap safe

Other studies show ivermectin also cures 70-90% of infected patients within 48 hours




I wish there was a more open discussion about what is going on with Covid-19 treatments

See trial results and links below and in previous post

Here is one Ivermectin Healthworker TRIAL

1,195 health professionals were studied of which 407 received no treatment and 788 self-administered ivermectin oral drops and an iota-carrageenan nasal spray five times per day over a 14 day period.

The Results

The Argentinian study team reported around August 2020

1. ZERO Covid-19 cases recorded in the ivermectin arm,

2. 58% participants in the control group (e.g. not taking the study drug combination) were infected with COVID-19 during the duration of the trial.

The study’s primary endpoint in a 30 day time period was “Reduction in contagion” for health personnel.

Carrageenan is a food thicken agent



The deleting of posts by serious Drs talking about Covid-19 smacks of Semmelweis and is wrong


Dr. Ryan Cole is the CEO and Medical Director of Cole Diagnostics, one of the largest independent labs in the State of Idaho. Dr. Cole is a Mayo Clinic trained Board Certified Pathologist.

He has over seen 350,000 patients in his career, and has done over 100,000 Covid tests in the past year.

Dr Cole says he takes ivermectin and hospital studies show a 100% protection for staff taking ivermectin compared to a 50% infection rate in those not taking it

Additionally the patient Covid-19 Death rate decreased 70-90% in hospitals treating COVID-19 patients with ivermectin

He is Board Certified in anatomic and clinical pathology. He has expertise in immunology and virology and also has subspecialty expertise in skin pathology

He recently was invited to speak at the “Capitol Clarity” event in Idaho, apparently sponsored by the Lt. Governor’s office, where he discussed successful outpatient treatments for COVID, and to offer his views on the new COVID “vaccines.”

There is something very wrong going on

The CDC publically recorded 45 deaths in 2019 following 170 millon single flu shots -death occurring at a rate of 0.0000265 percent

As of Feb. 26, 47million COVID vaccinations had been given with 1,136 CDC deaths reported following vaccination, which is approximately a rate of .0024 percent (over a 2 month period - that should equal about 6,000 to 12,000 deaths a year)

Between Dec. 14 and Feb. 26, 25,072 adverse reports were made to the CDC VAERS system of immunizations with either the Moderna or Pfizer

Most deaths were occurring within 3 weeks of vaccination - 8% on the day of vaccination, 33% within 2 days and 52% within a week of vaccination.

It is believed VAERS may significantly under report vaccine deaths as it is a voluntary reporting system

See livescience link 3916 at end of this post - additionally note

Mar. 8, 2021 over 92 million doses of mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 have been injected, with 1,637 deaths occurring following the injections.

The 1,637 deaths reported by the CDC via VAERS following 92 million vaccinations are occurring at an approximate rate of .0018 percent.

Covid vaccines have 2 doses so the real mortality rate will be higher than 0.0018% as some will have had 2 shots (ie not 92 million people vaccinated) and assuming all post vaccination deaths are reported - if not then an even higher mortality will apply

It should be easy to report the death rates amongst non vaccinated - but this is not done

So lets look properly at using Ivermectin which is effective against all Covid variants

Dr. Cole describes ivermectin as a proven outpatient therapy and others that are being used successfully against COVID all over the world, and these therapies cost pennies compared to the costs of hospital treatments done in the United States that have been less than successful

He discusses his own use of ivermectin in the USA on patients (he is taking it himself) and studies / use around the world, including extensive use in Texan hospitals, of ivermectin to stop catching covid or curing patients with covid-19

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=av1-f-r3tRg&feature=youtu.be



I would like clarification if it is true that under US law a vaccine is not supposed to be approved if there are already successful outpatient treatments. If this is the case does this explain the FDA not fast tracking studies on ivermectin and GS-44152

Dr Cole states that the highest risk factors for contracting COVID are advanced age, obesity, and low Vitamin D levels.
  • Inflammatory (cytokine) storm cannot be controlled without adequate vitamin D levels.
  • Massive numbers of Americans have low vitamin D levels.
  • 96% of ICU patients are vitamin D deficient
  • You cannot synthesize vitamin D from sunlight during fall and winter at 35-degrees north.
  • You are immune suppressed if you do not supplement with vitamin D during fall and winter.
  • Scandinavian countries (Finland, Norway, Sweden) test their citizens twice a year for vitamin D and fortify 35 foods with vitamin D
  • Darker skin pigmentation inhibits sunshine vitamin D synthesis in the skin.
  • Fauci says he personally takes 8000-9000 units of vitamin D per day but why has this has not become a public health message?
  • By law, the federal government cannot approve a vaccine if there is a proven treatment. That would be Ivermectin
  • The drug Remdesivir only works during the first 2-3 days of the infection. It does not increase survival.
  • Four billion doses of Ivermectin have safely taken Ivermectin. Death rate decreased 70-90% in hospitals treating COVID-19 patients.
  • Of the half million COVID-19 deaths in North America, there could be 375,000 less deaths if Ivermectin were used
  • Ivermectin works for all genetic variants.

He also explains that coronaviruses have historically always followed a 6-9 month life cycle. He gives previous examples such as SARS-1, MERS, etc.

One very interesting statistic that he pointed out is that in the U.S. the average annual age of death is 78.6 years old, and the average age of death during COVID has also been 78.6 years old.

Dr. Cole is very adamant that proper levels of Vitamin D are essential to fight coronaviruses.

Established World Data: “Normal Vitamin D levels decrease COVID system severity and risk for hospitalization by up to 90%.”

He also makes very insightful remarks about the development of the COVID vaccines and discusses that the NIH (the National Institute of Health), which is a U.S. government agency involved with approving drugs, holds patents on the Moderna experimental COVID “vaccine,” which is like asking the fox to guard the hen house.

There has been little disclosed about the vaccines adverse effects though some comments about reported vaccine death rates have come out indicating no issues.

You will have to make your own mind up.

See Reuters fact check link

Please remember VAERS is the CDCs public system on vaccines and there is a much better private system VSD the CDC uses

Monitoring of adverse vaccine reactions exists, and the CDC has 2 main reporting systems for vaccines – Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) and CDC said it would now add V-SAFE for Covid-19



What do VSD and V-SAFE show compared to VAERS?

View the post about VSD and VAERS in the link at




Comments on Death Rates

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) told The Epoch Times in an e-mail that as of Mar. 8, 2021 over 92 million doses of mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 have been injected, with 1,637 deaths occurring following the injections. The CDC claims the vaccines are safe, but a comparison between the rates of deaths following the vaccines for COVID and those for influenza raises questions

The Epoch Times hasn’t been able independently to confirm the CDC’s numbers. The publicly available Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) website shows 1,136 deaths through Feb. 26.

Details of these deaths are in a spreadsheet linked at the bottom of this article: symptoms before death, age, gender, time between injection and death, and so forth.
Between Dec. 14 and Feb. 26, 25,072 reports were made to the VAERS system of immunizations with either the Moderna or Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccines (the only two vaccines given during the time period assessed).

The 1,136 deaths represent 4.5 percent of the total number of adverse events reports. Of those who died, 94, or 8.3 percent, died on the same day they got the shot. An additional 150 (13.2 percent) died the day after. Another 105 died two days after, and 68 died three days after.

A total of 587 (51.7 percent) died within a week, 215 died within 7 to 13 days, and 124 within 14 to 20 days. 85.8 percent of deaths occurred in people over 60.

There were five deaths among those aged 20–29; 10 in those aged 30–39; 23 in those aged 40–49; and 69 aged 50–59.


Comparison With Influenza Vaccines
Neither of the mRNA vaccines is FDA approved, rather, they have Emergency Use Approval (EUA). They represent a departure from traditional vaccines in that they do not use any part of the suspected pathogen to stimulate the immune system, but rather, nucleoside messenger RNA.
Dr. Christian Perrone, head of infectious disease at the Hôpital de Garches in France, stated in a complaint filed in Europe:
The first vaccines they are offering us are not vaccines. They are gene therapy products. They inject nucleic acids that will cause our own cells to produce elements of the virus.
The death rate following COVID mRNA vaccination is much higher than that following influenza vaccination. The CDC’s data allows only a ballpark estimation of the rate of deaths following flu vaccination. In the 2019-2020 influenza season the CDC reports that 51.8 percent of the U.S. population received a vaccine, which is approximately 170 million people.
VAERS reports that in the calendar year 2019 (not the 2019-2020 influenza season) there were 45 deaths following vaccination. To provide context, in 2018 VAERS reports 46 deaths, and in 2017 it reports 20 deaths. The 45 deaths in 2019 are occurring at a rate of 0.0000265 percent when calculated using the number of vaccines given in the 2019–2020 influenza season.
As of Feb. 26, 47,184,199 COVID vaccinations had been given with 1,136 deaths reported following vaccination, which is approximately a rate of .0024 percent. The 1,637 deaths reported by the CDC following 92 million vaccinations are occurring at an approximate rate of .0018 percent.

Because the mRNA vaccines each require two shots, the number of vaccinations given does not equate to the number of people vaccinated. If the 92 million vaccinations, for instance, represented each person receiving both shots, then there would be 46 million people who had been vaccinated. But it is impossible to say exactly how many people have received one shot or both shots.


 
Last edited:
Nov 12, 2020
180
36
130
Ivermectin for use in livestock and domestic pets is for that purpose ONLY. Manufacturers are now labeling their Ivermectin formulations as "Not For Human Consumption". N.B.: Self medication with Veterinary use Ivermectin is both foolhardy and potentially lethal. Talk with a health care provider for the safest protocol(s) for covid-19 prevention. As for the vaccines, they provide a varying degree of protection, just like the annual flu vaccine. Again talk with a health care provider.
 
Feb 10, 2020
74
10
555
Ivermectin for use in livestock and domestic pets is for that purpose ONLY. Manufacturers are now labeling their Ivermectin formulations as "Not For Human Consumption". N.B.: Self medication with Veterinary use Ivermectin is both foolhardy and potentially lethal. Talk with a health care provider for the safest protocol(s) for covid-19 prevention. As for the vaccines, they provide a varying degree of protection, just like the annual flu vaccine. Again talk with a health care provider.
I have a friend spending his 10th week in hospital after taking a shot.
I'd go Ivermectin all day long over any of these unapproved shots.. The lists of side effects and deaths are far exceeding the deaths. We see it country after country once they do the vax roll out.. Gibralter, Seychelles, Germany, UAE, Israel..
 
Sep 6, 2020
69
5
55
"They determined that the evidence on whether ivermectin reduces mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, need for hospital admission and time to clinical improvement in COVID-19 patients is of “very low certainty,” due to the small sizes and methodological limitations of available trial data, including small number of events. "

"
31 March 2021

The current evidence on the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 patients is inconclusive. Until more data is available, WHO recommends that the drug only be used within clinical trials."

 
Jul 2, 2020
246
29
130
There have been nearly 90 ivermectin studies to date 45+ peer reviewed, 52 with control groups and 27 with randomized control trials

98% of the 52 studies to date report positive effects (25 statistically significant in isolation)

The probability that an ineffective ivermectin treatment generated results as positive in the 52 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 85 trillion

Random effects meta-analysis for early treatment and pooled effects shows an 81% reduction, RR 0.19 [0.09-0.39], and prophylactic use shows 85% improvement, RR 0.15 [0.09-0.25].

Mortality results show 76% lower mortality, RR 0.24 [0.14-0.42] for all treatment delays, and 84% lower, RR 0.16 [0.04-0.63] for early treatment.

See link later below

Ivermectin has been shown 100% effective in stopping hospital workers catching Covid-19 - in an initial clinical trial 58% of the control group caught covid while ZERO in the ivermectin group caught Covid.

See later below for link

There have been countless trials across the world in hospital and city population settings that show ivermectin is safe and effective against Covid-19

100% of the study of over 1200 Argentinean health care workers receiving ivermectin remained covid free over a 30 day time frame while 58% in the control group became infected

The study, formally titled “Usefulness of Topic Ivermectin and Carrageenan to Prevent Contagion of COVID Among Healthy People and Health Personnel” had a start date of June 1, 2020 and an estimated study completion date of August 10, 2020. The study team recruited 1,195 health professionals of which 407 received no treatment and 788 self-administered ivermectin oral drops and an iota-carrageenan nasal spray five times per day over a 14 day period.

The Results

The Argentinian study team reported that the study data revealed that of the participants in the control group (e.g. not taking the study drug combination) 58% of the participants were infected with COVID-19 during the duration of the trial. The study team reported no contagions were recorded in the ivermectin arm, showcasing the compounds’ virucidal effects can potentially protect against COVID-19.

The study’s primary endpoint in a 30 day time period was “Reduction in contagion” for health personnel.

The study team established that the aim would be to “reduce dramatically” and assuming these claims are factual the results are striking.

Out of 788 self-administered from the intervention arm, not one person fell ill to SARS-CoV-2.


Database of all ivermectin COVID-19 studies.
89 studies, 48 peer reviewed, 52 with results comparing treatment and control groups 27 with randomized control trials

98% of the 52 studies to date report positive effects (25 statistically significant in isolation). Random effects meta-analysis for early treatment and pooled effects shows an 81% reduction, RR 0.19 [0.09-0.39], and prophylactic use shows 85% improvement, RR 0.15 [0.09-0.25]. Mortality results show 76% lower mortality, RR 0.24 [0.14-0.42] for all treatment delays, and 84% lower, RR 0.16 [0.04-0.63] for early treatment.

• 96% of the 27 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) report positive effects, with an estimated 64% improvement, RR 0.36 [0.24-0.52].

• The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 52 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 85 trillion (p = 0.000000000000012).


TOO MANY COMMERCIAL CONFLICTS AGAINST IVERMECTIN

February 4 press releasefrom Merck is raising yet more questions about why research money is not going to ivermectin and why this seemingly effective drug is so underutilized, even in North American research. In the statement Merck, one of America’s great pharmaceutical companies and manufacturer of the Stromectol/Mectizan branded versions of ivermectin, claims that:

1) there is no evidence that ivermectin works for COVID-19, and
2) there is a “concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies,” suggesting that the drug may be unsafe.

Concern two is odd, given that Merck has
proudly donated billions of doses of ivermectin to fight river blindness. On its website, Merck boasts that its own Dr. William Campbell first suggested the use of ivermectin for river blindness in the late 1970s and that from 1987 to today Merck has committed to donating, “as much as needed, for as long as needed” to eliminate river blindness.

The firm notes that the ivermectin program, “reaches more than 300 million people in the affected areas annually, with more than 4 billion treatments donated since 1987.”

And according to the August 2020
version of NIH’s COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines, ivermectin “has demonstrated an excellent safety profile” in past use.

The Merck press release goes on to intricately detail ivermectin’s potential adverse reactions, but in the context of the NIH’s view and the efficacy issues touched on below, this focus has an element of strategic scaremongering.

Could it be because not only did they just announce their intention to acquire a company for $425 million to develop a novel COVID-19 treatment but they also recently received $356 million from the government to support the effort?

 
Last edited:
Sep 6, 2020
69
5
55
There have been nearly 90 ivermectin studies to date 45+ peer reviewed, 52 with control groups and 27 with randomized control trials

98% of the 52 studies to date report positive effects (25 statistically significant in isolation)

The probability that an ineffective ivermectin treatment generated results as positive in the 52 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 85 trillion
Your link is September 2020 whereas my link from an internationally accept source is March 2021.

It is a copy and paste without you reading the content or understanding as, and I quote from your link 'This study was observational, hence carries less weight of evidence as does the randomized controlled study '.
 
Jul 2, 2020
246
29
130

The WHO review you refer to is very limited and states

"The panel did not look at the use of ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, which is outside of scope of the current guidelines."

The hospital staff study I referred to focused on using ivermectin in preventing staff catching Covid-19 and was 100% successful in keeping hospital staff Covid free - 58% of the control group not taking ivermectin caught Covid-19

Previous research states Ivermectin is very safe even at 10 times FDA recommended doses with no material poisoning evidence being shown despite billions of doses being given

Ivermectin was generally well tolerated, with no indication of associated Central Nervous System toxicity for doses up to 10 times the highest FDA-approved dose of 200 microg/kg. All dose regimens had a mydriatic effect similar to placebo. Adverse experiences were similar between ivermectin and placebo and did not increase with dose.


Also please review my reply which centered around the link above to the data from the 90 or so ivermectin studies to the 30 April 2021. The data is continually updated and new studies added. Independent reviews continue to highlight ivermectin's effectiveness

The latest peer reviewed study was 19th April, with many other new study results posted over April

To show what the results indicate and how effective ivermectin is I quoted one simple credible hospital staff study example of these 90

which had a control group
was carried out out on hospital workers
and had a 100% success rate in stopping people catching Covid
while 58% in the control group caught Covid 19

The fact the study I quoted happened in September and there has been no material follow up with large scale human and animal trials despite many previous and continuing favorable hospital studies throughout the world including the USA, and the FDA changed the ivermectin status to allow its use as a Covid treatment is the real issue.

There have even been cases in USA where courts have ordered hospitals to allow the continued use of Ivermectin in patients who have dramatically improved in the ICU only after receiving Ivermectin and the hospitals then tried to withhold on going treatment for unclear reasons



I concluded with some of the FDA and Pharma evidence showing how safe Ivermectin is and the commercial and regulatory conflicts.

It is clear that ivermectin has been long established as having a dramatic effectiveness against Covid-19

From April 2020 or before leading university researchers in Australia and others elsewhere have shown Ivermectin as effective against Covid-19

That there have been no large scale funded trials of this WHO approved drug deemed very safe and of critical importance to human health is to say the least disappointing

Remdesivir had much less effectiveness compared to ivermectin but was FDA approved for use.

A video summary below helps outline the benefits indentified


[Dr Cole].... was invited to speak at the “Capitol Clarity” event in Idaho, apparently sponsored by the Lt. Governor’s office, where he discussed successful outpatient treatments for COVID.....

Dr. Cole describes ivermectin as a proven outpatient therapy and others that are being used successfully against COVID all over the world, and these therapies cost pennies compared to the costs of hospital treatments done in the United States that have been less than successful

He discusses his own use of ivermectin in the USA on patients (he is taking it himself) and studies / use around the world, including extensive use in Texan hospitals, of ivermectin to stop catching covid or curing patients with covid-19
Lets keep an open mind for multiple treatments alongside vaccination for this ongoing covid crisis and push for large scale clinical trials of ivermectin





It makes little sense that leading agencies have said that ivermectin is toxic in high doses never used or proposed in any treatments carried out when research shows ivermectin is safe even at 10 times the FDA approved dose

In Europe the EMA fails to dive deeper into the dozens of studies showing that perfectly safe doses are used with positive results.

And because EMA precluded a more open-minded, thorough and unbiased deep-dive review of those studies they therefore cannot recommend ivermectin for prevention or treatment of COVID-19 outside controlled clinical trials.

They argue well-designed, randomized studies are needed to draw conclusions as to whether the product is effective and safe in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. [THE DRUG IS ALREADY PROVED AS VERY SAFE]

TrialSite shares that EMA does refer to a TrialSite article in relation to the Slovakia situation.

Call to Action: Given the recent news from FDA and EMA, TrialSite’s position is that both FDA and EMA are taking very narrow, industry-centric views shunning low cost, generic repurposed drugs while expressing more open and opportunistic interpretations for industry-centric products.

For example, while the pivotal WHO Solidarity trial shows remdesivir doesn’t help with COVID, this doesn’t stop FDA and EMA supporting the drug and the sponsor—this has led to over $3 billion in revenue in less than one year.

The pandemic reveals a clear and present bias in favor of high-priced, experimental drugs over generic, repurposed, low cost drugs.

Hence why Steve Kirsch put up the recent challenge to pay anyone $25,000 cash who can prove right now that Fluvoxamine doesn’t have all the evidence needed for authorization. TrialSite does share a new level of appreciation for National Institutes of Health for at least acknowledging key ivermectin studies and changing its rating to a neutral one.

 
Last edited:
Sep 6, 2020
69
5
55

The WHO review you refer to is very limited and states

"The panel did not look at the use of ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, which is outside of scope of the current guidelines."

The hospital staff study I referred to focused on using ivermectin in preventing staff catching Covid-19 and was 100% successful in keeping hospital staff Covid free - 58% of the control group not taking ivermectin caught Covid-19
The WHO do not conduct research, this is not their remit, they require peer review and correct procedure to be undertaken before they can make a position.

Your updated links fail this basic test to move forward.

I can easily find 5 people that claim chicken soup made them feel better from their illnesses, but without the correct procedure it is not going to be accepted - The procedure is noted by Dr Andrew Hill 'The authors of the review intend to include three more trials, due to be published sometime in January, before providing a final conclusion. At the end of his presentation, Dr Hill describes low-cost ivermectin as a potentially ' - We need to wait and that is another reason it is ot available as yet.

Your link on Trialsite is just an opportunist attack on the European countries... There is nothing stopping a roll out in many other countries, whom all are awaiting conclusive evidence.

ll you have presented is a host of early data and no accetable route.

Once that is in place then there may be a case.

At the moment all you doing is championing the risk of another thalidomide scenario.
 
Aug 15, 2020
44
1
55
Ivermectin is a very safe drug with no material record of causing human or animal death or illness. It should be urgently studied as a Covid-19 preventative treatment
 
Last edited:
Jul 2, 2020
246
29
130
The ivermectin situation continues in controversy as a new French civic group known as the BonSens Association makes allegations of scientific misconduct associated with the ivermectin meta-analysis authored by Dr. Andrew Hill and a group of researchers affiliated with the University of Liverpool and Unitaid / WHO

TrialSite has gained insight on this imbroglio from a series of conversations with relevant and associated parties, some that wish to remain anonymous that have shared that in fact this study was modified separate and apart from the investigator.

According to some ivermectin proponents, at stake here is more than just issues of scientific integrity but importantly, the health of hundreds of millions of people and the operation of free markets, which depend on the rule of law, scientific transparency, and rational actions by government health authorities and regulatory bodies.

On the other hand, the overwhelming consensus among research institutes, regulatory entities and academic medical centers not to mention international health bodies such as the World Health Organization (WHO) declare emphatically the need for large randomized controlled trials.

Dr. Hill, a well-respected researcher and advocate for economical treatments for COVID-19, is resolute and stands behind the study.


This allegation first picked up in interviews and then in a French media centers on the meta-analysis authored by Dr. Andrew Hill and titled “Preliminary meta-analysis of randomized trials of ivermectin to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

The BonSens Association claims that this particular study was actually interfered with by either Unitaid (one of the study’s sponsors) or other to-be-named individuals and modified so as to dampen or lessen the highly respected researcher’s initial positive recommendation associated with ivermectin in the thoroughly pooled and analyzed clinical trial paper.

TrialSite learned from others not only about the alleged modifications made to this important paper but also that the group had already sent a demand letter alleging scientific misconduct to the University of Liverpool.

TrialSite has interviewed parties with first and second hand information that claim that this modification did in fact occur and that Dr. Hill didn’t have any authority to do anything about it.

The Ivermectin Meta-Analysis Allegation
In addition to Mr. Azalbert’s media, France Soir, TrialSite learned from others not only about the alleged modifications made to this important paper but also that the group had already sent a demand letter alleging scientific misconduct to the University of Liverpool.

What is BonSens Objective with the allegations as to the ivermectin meta-analysis?

Mr. Azalbert shared with TrialSite that they have sent the letter demanding that Professor Hill retract the study and address their allegations of scientific misconduct. He also noted that they have sent a copy to INSEM, the National Institute of Health and Medical Research. Azalbert told TrialSite that they wanted to give Dr. Hill an opportunity to respond to the claims in a public forum. Thus far no response. The ultimate goal here is to call attention to bias and undue influence in the health research system.

Dr. Hill’s POV
TrialSite reached out directly to Dr. Andrew Hill for his perspective. A highly respected researcher who in many ways has led the way in identifying ivermectin as a potential treatment for COVID-19 was unwavering in his support of the study.
Dr. Hill informed TrialSite, “I am happy with the final version of this meta-analysis as posted on Research Square.”

 
Sep 6, 2020
69
5
55
As there are numerous vaccines that are working and suitable, is the case for this closed and merely the procedure on why it was not used the only item open for considering?
 
Aug 15, 2020
44
1
55
Science is not a closed subject.

Vaccines offer a route but the long term effectiveness and affects/effects are unknown.

New Covid variants and discussion of the possible need for additional shots already make clear we need an open mind and alternative and additional solutions

Drugs like Ivermectine are cheap, safe and effective and proven in limited hospital staff trials to be 100% effective stopping Covid compared to a 58% infection in the control group.

Vaccines are generally safe but are not the only or even always the cheapest or best solutions

We already know some Covid vaccines are less effective than others and that full animal trials were not conducted

We need to learn the lessons of the past and human history - commercial pressures are real and cover ups do occur for commercial and political reasons with fake science used to hide the truth.

Keep monitoring the vaccines and other drugs and not be blinded by the science

Governments in the west have carried out unethical medical testing on civilians without knowing the outcome or had knowledge it was dangerous or just withheld treatments of fatal diseases to track its progress.



Fact vs. fake – why don’t we trust science any more? | DW Documentary

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t5UPnuSTRjA
 
Sep 6, 2020
69
5
55
Vaccines offer a route but the long term effectiveness and affects/effects are unknown.

We already know some Covid vaccines are less effective than others and that full animal trials were not conducted


Over the last 40 years, what examples do you have for unknown major effects from vaccines?
All parties have been clear vaccine effectiveness changes with time and this is seen most commonly with the flu vaccine.

Do you condone the use of animals in experiments?

Your link on human trials started with 1840s, do you have something more current and for countries such as the USA or UK... Other countries do have issues, but it is not for a coronavirus forum to debate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wwe12
Aug 15, 2020
44
1
55
This post is about Noble Prize winning ivermectine one of the existing cheap effective Covid treatment alternatives that can be used with vaccines or alone

Most of your questions are addressed in other posts linked below

It is known that many simple vaccines are good and effective.

Coronavirus vaccines are mostly based on new complicated and unproven tech. See later comments on serious / fatal liver damage in animal trials in cancelled coronavirus vaccine trials for SARS in 2004 using rmna/rmva technology

Over the last 40 years, what examples do you have for unknown major effects from vaccines?
Some are listed later on

The serious issue is the HHS/FDA/CDC has failed to report its vaccine safety improvement research for almost 40 years as required by law and it has been confirmed in a Harvard study the CDC captures/reports only 1% of USA adverse vaccine events

"In order to assure HHS meets its vaccine safety obligations, Congress required as part of the 1986 Act that the Secretary of HHS submit a biennial reports to Congress detailing the improvements in vaccine safety made by HHS in the preceding two years."

" ICAN was therefore forced to file a lawsuit to force HHS to either provide copies of its biennial vaccine safety reports to Congress or admit it never filed these reports. The result of the lawsuit is that HHS had to finally and shockingly admit that it never, not even once, submitted a single biennial report to Congress detailing the improvements in vaccine safety. "

On Vaccines and drugs the fundamental problem is well known. There is no funding for independent commercial free research and politicians and the FDA are funded by pharma and regulation is poor or very compromised.

pharma withholds their research or suppress other competing drugs with shorter



September 2020 - Kershaw, Cook & Talley

The allegations Public Citizen brought forward concerning Gilead’s conduct with respect to Remdesivir and GS-441524 is remarkably similar to its alleged conduct in a lawsuit pending in San Francisco Superior Court on behalf of thousands of individuals represented by Kershaw, Cook & Talley and other law firms across the United States. In this lawsuit, plaintiffs allege that Gilead developed TDF-based drugs .........while it simultaneously developed TAF-based drugs proved to be safer and at least equally effective at much smaller doses. Gilead’s own studies demonstrated that TDF had a much higher risk of severe side effects, including bone loss and kidney failure. Gilead chose to sell TDF and kept TAF (the safer drug) off the market for nearly 15 years. Plaintiffs allege that this strategy was enacted solely to maximize Gilead’s profits and extend its patent protection for these life-saving drugs. Once the patent on TDF ran out, Gilead then came out with TAF and marketed it as a “new and improved” drug with fewer side effects than TDF.

To date, almost 18,000 plaintiffs have filed lawsuits against Gilead, which have been consolidated in San Francisco Superior Court for pretrial discovery.


October 2020 a separate lawsuit

According to allegations raised in a product liability lawsuit recently filed by a group of 10 people, Gilead Sciences, Inc. allegedly sold inferior, potentially life-threatening HIV drugs knowing it had a safer formulation, in order to increase its profit margins at the expense of patients.

See some of the specific petition claims below

https://aboutlawsuits-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020-10-9-hiv-drugs-joint-complaint.pdf
John Milligan, Gilead’s President and Chief Executive Officer, later admitted to investment analysts, the real reason Gilead abandoned the TAF design was that TAF was too different from TDF. Once Gilead’s first TDF product, Viread, was on the market, Gilead did not want to hurt TDF sales by admitting that its TDF-based products are unreasonably and unnecessarily unsafe.

In addition, Gilead knew that by withholding the safer TAF design, it could extend the longevity of its HIV drug franchise and make billions two times over: first, with TDF medications until TDF patent expiration, which would begin by no later than 2018, and second, with TAF medications until TAF patent expiration as late as 2032. Only once Gilead realized billions in sales through most of the TDF patent life did it seek to market safer TAF-based versions of its HIV medications.
The independent vaccine studies showing issues are "never" independently followed up on

"DTP [vaccine] was associated with 5-fold higher mortality than being unvaccinated [10 fold mortality in girls]. No prospective study has shown beneficial survival effects of DTP. "

"It should be of concern that the effect of routine vaccinations on all-cause mortality was not tested in randomized trials."

All that is requested is transparency in all drug and health trials and when in use however the CDCs VAERS vaccine reporting system only catches 1% of all vaccine problems see link below

deposition where the Godfather of vaccines Prof Stanley Plotkin reviews the Harvard study
[Prof Plotkin is now advising on a coronavirus vaccine, invented the rubella vaccine, is very pro vaccine and consults for major pharma cos]
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/09/doctor-who-invented-rubella-vaccine-working-to-fight-the-coronavirus.html
The Harvard study involved 715,000 people and 1.4 million vaccine doses given to about 376,000 people. "Of these doses 35,570 possible reactions (2.6 percent of [the 1.4 million] vaccinations) were identified.””

Based on the Harvard study data the report concludes that fewer than 1% of adverse vaccine effects are reported via VAERS.

It seems from the Harvard Study that the 35,000+ adverse vaccine reactions in the 715,000 study population was about the same as was reported for the whole of the 300+milion population of the USA in around 2009.

Prof Plotkin reviews the Harvard Study and confirms that it says fewer than 1% of AVEs are reported and that it appears that once the study findings were set out in draft form the CDC stopped co-operating with the research. Its all stated in the video.
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D3x0rQT_eSw


Covid vaccines are complicated and experimental and released under an EUA which enables the expedited authorization and use of an unapproved product in a declared emergency involving a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) agent.

Previous coronavirus vaccines failed animal testing with fatal liver damage shown in post mortems despite no obvious distress to the live animals

I believe animal testing is wrong but is part of CDC policy and been removed from Covid trials despite the previous animal trial fatal liver damage issues

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-
perspective/2004/12/sars-vaccine-linked-liver-damage-ferret-study


1. They’re a whole new type of vaccine

If an mRNA vaccine was approved for coronavirus, it would be the first of its type. ‘It's a very unique way of making a vaccine and, so far, no (such) vaccine has been licenced for infectious disease,’ said Prof. Bekeredjian-Ding.

4. There are a lot of unknowns

Because mRNA vaccines are only now beginning to be tested in humans, there are a lot of fairly basic unknowns which can only be answered through human trials. ‘What is really the current challenge, I think, is to understand whether these vaccines will really be able to mount a sufficiently protective immune response in the human and to understand, for example, which quantities of mRNA will be needed to do this,’ said Prof. Bekeredjian-Ding.

Other outstanding questions include whether the proteins that have been chosen for the vaccine are the right ones to prevent a coronavirus infection in the body, how targeted the immune response is to this particular coronavirus, how long any immunity would last, and whether it causes side-effects such as increased inflammatory responses like redness and swelling or, in the worst case, aggravates disease.


The DW docu shows how drug and health data has for years been manipulated by pharma and business

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t5UPnuSTRjA


You will see in the docu when scientists discovered by accident that very tiny levels of plastics caused cancer but "high" exposure did not this data was ignored by the FDA despite being repeatedly replicated @21 mins 15 seconds

@24mins 20secs into video for medical stats - 1/25,000 of safe plastic level caused cancer in cells in test tubes to replicate very rapidly in front of. Higher does did not cause rapid cancer.

@27 mins 15 seconds in research Prof Vom Saal states 93% of independent studies found plastic problems while zero commercially funded studies identified the problem. Prof Vom Staal says research showed the commercial studies used a type of rat genetically selected+ not to react to plastic exposure to hide the


Dr. Bernardine Healy MD, former NIH director and former CEO of the American Red Cross admits that she only changed her mind on vaccines after looking at the evidence while at the NIH. In the interview below Dr Healy states that the FDA/government have a formal policy to block research into adverse vaccine effects, which has been set out as policy in writing in reports, and goes back to at least the early 2000s, and Dr Healy says she believes is unscientific.

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6KFtdSYES6o

Various medical treatments such as vaccines are linked to GULF War Syndrom and US courts banned the vaccines so an EUA [as has been granted for Covid vaccines] was granted by the CDC to get around the court ban.

Please review the links to unethical biological and other testing from the 1940s through today see the 2 links below. It shows a disregard for health and safety in vaccine or drug trials or in observing the ethical use of US and foreign civilians in experiments conducted or supervised by government agencies



See post below for extensive comments

Vaccines are generally positive but its important for there to be real openness about the risks and whats going on as vaccines are rolled out

There are risks as with all vaccines, that are not much discussed or publicized. A top cancer professor and another person died shortly after having yellow fever vaccinations. Its likely this only got into the news because of the the Professor had links to Prince William.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6935925/Two-British-people-DIE-receiving-yellow-fever-vaccines.html

Its not much publicly discussed but the CDC, Dr Fauci and others have quietly highlighted real problems with creating any coronavirus vaccine because of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) which is only seen after a vaccinated patient becomes infected with a coronavirus.

Scientific American has stated that "antibodies typical of ADE are present in the blood of some COVID-19 patients"

On Covid-19 it has been said by Dr Fauci

"Scientists will develop a COVID-19 vaccine, but it could end up only being 50 to 60 percent effective, Dr. Anthony Fauci said Friday."


Separately antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) issues exist with vaccines and were
particularly seen in previous coronavirus vaccines for SARS etc

In some animal trials there were no obvious clinical signs of ADE but post trial work on the animals showed that they had suffered severe health issues

The ADE reaction between the vaccine and the virus has not been obvious in various trials and can be a “serious adverse vaccine event”.

The CDC defines serious adverse vaccine event, as when the "event resulted in permanent disability, hospitalization, life-threatening illness, or death."

Links to Dr Fauci, Scientific American, peer reviewed clinical trials and others explaining some ADE issues are set out below

ADE and Covid-19 American Scientific Article

"Aside from questions of safety that attend any vaccine, there are good reasons to be especially cautious for COVID-19. Some vaccines worsen the consequences of infection rather than protect, a phenomenon called antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). ADE has been observed in previous attempts to develop coronavirus vaccines.

To add to the concern, antibodies typical of ADE are present in the blood of some COVID-19 patients. Such concerns are real.

As recently as 2016, Dengavxia, intended to protect children from the dengue virus, increased hospitalizations for children who received the vaccine."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-risks-of-rushing-a-covid-19-vaccine/

While Dengavxia clearly caused a form of ADE it took a review of 6 years of patient data to determine that there was a problem - and this was done only because of adverse reactions concerns were raised but were initially dismissed by the vaccine maker and still it is not clear who knew what when

"World Health Organization (WHO) revised its recommendations on Dengvaxia, stating that people who have not been infected with the virus should avoid the vaccine"

"There is absolutely no way the Filipino government can claim they didn't know about the potential for ADE-dengue in some vaccinated children," Lanard said. "They only have a claim against Sanofi if they can prove that Sanofi dishonestly reassured them that this worry had no basis."


"Drug maker Sanofi says that its dengue vaccine, the world’s first, should only be given to people who have previously been sickened by the virus, according to new long-term data.

In a statement, Sanofi said it had recently examined six years of patient data. Scientists concluded that while the vaccine protects people against further infection if they’ve already been infected with dengue, that’s not the case for people who haven’t previously been sickened by the disease."

“For those not previously infected by dengue virus…the analysis found that in the longer term, more cases of severe disease could occur following vaccination,” Sanofi said. “These findings highlight the complex nature of dengue infection.” [or of an ADE reaction to any infection]


ADE in Clinical Trial of Coronavirus Vaccine

In 2004 a study into a coronavirus vaccine trial looked at liver sections of ferrets and showed that all the vaccinated ferrets had severe hepatitis after being exposed to a coronavirus, but displayed no clinical signs of illness. The unvaccinated trial ferrets only had mild hepatitis in their livers – they were injected with a saline solution / another placebo and exposed to the same coronavirus at the same time as the vaccinated ferrets.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2004/12/sars-vaccine-linked-liver-damage-ferret-study

Dr Fauci says about ADE and coronavirus vaccines
"One of the things you have to be careful of when you're dealing with a coronavirus is the possibility of enhancement" Fauci said in an interview with the journal JAMA on April 8. Some vaccines cause a dangerous phenomenon known as antibody dependent enhancement (ADE), which paradoxically leaves the body more vulnerable to severe illness after inoculation.
https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-timeline.html

Other researchers have suggested that the severe reactions already seen in Covid-19 could be a form of ADE because of a prior exposure to other coronaviruses, while this is just speculation it seems like it should be researched as part of gaining a better understanding of Covid-19.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1286457920300344

ADE Long Term Vaccine Monitoring issues

Long-term monitoring of adverse vaccine reactions exists, and the CDC has 2 main reporting systems for vaccines – Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) and will now add V-SAFE for Covid-19

Monitoring of a coronavirus vaccine is not simply a question of looking for any initial ADE reaction to a new vaccine - on going monitoring in the general population is needed generally in case trials do not show longer term consequences. The previous experience of ferrets with a coronavirus vaccine implies some human results may not be known until much later. Separately some researchers have indicated other ADE triggers and different Covid-19 vaccines may use different vaccine adjuvants which could also trigger adverse reactions

The article below outlines the use of a natural adjuvant for Covid-19 Vaccines


"For all the talk about the cutting-edge vaccines that may just get us out of the COVID-19 mess, little has been written about adjuvants. Perhaps that shouldn’t be surprising: The late Yale professor Charles Janeway famously called adjuvants the “immunologist’s dirty little secret.”

These unheralded helpers can turn a half-baked vaccine into an effective one, or stretch a scarce vaccine supply during a pandemic. Not every vaccine requires an adjuvant, but many do: Of the more than 200 vaccines listed in the Milken Institute’s COVID-19 vaccine tracker, approximately 40 percent are protein-based vaccines, which rarely work without an adjuvant. Yet adjuvants have never attracted much funding from industry and government. “Adjuvants have been the weak link in vaccines for the last hundred years,” says Nikolai Petrovsky, a vaccine researcher at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia.

Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD)

As we go forward its important that independent researchers can verify what the FDA is telling us about vaccine safety and Vaccine Adverse Events

There does not seem to be much simple reporting available to the public from VAERS about any vaccines. VSD data is regarded as much better but is only open to the CDC and its approved researchers.

There are indications from the CDC and others working with the CDC that VAERS data has quality issues.

A CDC study from 2015 (Tom T. Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, Immunization Safety Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) states

"Quality and completeness of VAERS reports are variable and many reports lack valid medical diagnoses. The amount of VAERS reporting (30,000 U.S. reports annually) makes it impractical to conduct detailed follow-up on all reports to obtain missing and incomplete information and correct inconsistencies and errors. Because VAERS data do not include an unvaccinated comparison group, it is not possible to calculate and compare rates of adverse events in vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals and determine if vaccination is associated with an increased risk of an adverse event"


CDC itself states that "In 2019, VAERS received over 48,000 reports. About 85-90% of the reports describe mild side effects such as fever, arm soreness, and crying or mild irritability. The remaining reports are classified as serious, which means that the adverse event resulted in permanent disability, hospitalization, life-threatening illness, or death."

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vaers/index.html

The FDA does not provide VSD information to the public, or provide the data via VAERS (or elsewhere?) related to the vaccinated or vaccinated populations to enable a determination of whether a vaccination is associated with an increased risk of an adverse event.


Generally vaccines have had positive human health consequences particularly against controlling diseases transmitted from insects etc and things like measles, mumps and rubella, or BCG vaccine etc.

That does not mean they shouldnt be improved on and things like toxins and aluminum adjuvants replaced with natural adjuvant alternatives which are already being used but more expensive.

However the FDA has not been open as to what progress is being made on vaccine safety despite having had a legal duty to report so annually to Congress since 1986.

It is hard not to conclude the the FDA has failed to carry out its duties "to make and assure improvements in the licensing, manufacturing, adverse reaction reporting, research, safety and efficacy testing of vaccines in order to reduce the risk of adverse vaccine reactions"

"Since 1986, HHS has had the primary and virtually sole responsibility to make and assure improvements in the licensing, manufacturing, adverse reaction reporting, research, safety and efficacy testing of vaccines in order to reduce the risk of adverse vaccine reactions. In order to assure HHS meets its vaccine safety obligations, Congress required as part of the 1986 Act that the Secretary of HHS submit a biennial reports to Congress detailing the improvements in vaccine safety made by HHS in the preceding two years."

" ICAN was therefore forced to file a lawsuit to force HHS to either provide copies of its biennial vaccine safety reports to Congress or admit it never filed these reports. The result of the lawsuit is that HHS had to finally and shockingly admit that it never, not even once, submitted a single biennial report to Congress detailing the improvements in vaccine safety. "

It would be helpful to have access to the data on all vaccines for things like the infection and death rates plus the data on vaccine adverse effect rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. A good starting point would be HPV data, the Covid-19 vaccine data when it arrives and then a program to release all vaccine data updates that were required by law since 1986 so that what progress has been made can be clearly seen

There has been limited independent research which has identified vaccine problems

For example a 2017 study funded by the Danish Govt and others concluded that the death rate among children vaccinated with DTP vaccine was up to 5 times higher than all children not vaccinated (and 10 times higher in girls) Other studies have come to similar conclusions

The Introduction of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis and Oral Polio Vaccine Among Young Infants

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5360569/

"DTP was associated with 5-fold higher mortality than being unvaccinated. No prospective study has shown beneficial survival effects of DTP. "

"It should be of concern that the effect of routine vaccinations on all-cause mortality was not tested in randomized trials."

It would make sense for the whole subject of vaccination to have much greater transparency and at least a total separation of the FDA vaccine regulator from FDA vaccine research and funders

Most serious groups and people who raise question vaccines do not outright object to vaccines, many just want more open data and the removal of things like mercury and aluminum or other adjuvants - basically toxic free vaccines and the use of available natural adjuvant alternatives.

Robert Kennedy Junior who is a prominent leader for vaccine risk awareness, more research and debate, has had all his children vaccinated and has stated he is not against vaccines, but he does want openness. However he has been blocked on social media and the press from responding to critics, google censors searches for his web sites however no one from the pharma side will have an open public debate with him about vaccines.

https://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/robert-kennedy-jr-speaks-vaccine-requirements-article-1.2160247

Independent views on vaccines are hard to find - the best I could find was Dr. Bernardine Healy MD, former NIH director and former CEO of the American Red Cross she is not an anti vaxxer but has said publicly she believes more research needs to be done into vaccine links to illness - she admits that she only changed her mind after looking at the evidence. In the interview below Dr Healy states that the FDA/government have a formal policy to block research into adverse vaccine effects, which has been set out as policy in writing in reports, and goes back to at least the early 2000s, and Dr Healy says she believes is unscientific.

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6KFtdSYES6o


An open debate is good for all of us - please can we make this about wanting to find out the truth and not about being right or wrong
It should be mandatory to have public access to the data on all vaccines for things like the infection and death rates plus the data on vaccine adverse effect rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.

A good starting point would be HPV data, the Covid-19 vaccine data when it arrives and then a program to release all vaccine data updates that were required by law since 1986 so that what progress has been made can be clearly seen

Yes there are vaccine failures. Rotavirus vaccine was withdrawn, Dengue fever and DTP vaccine have been shown to have serious fatality issues under normal use and despite extensive independent research the issues were ignored or not properly investigated by the FDA

The US Regulators and pharma have a history of failure to report issues and in fast tracking vaccines or moving research to areas without good safety controls



 
Last edited:
Mar 4, 2020
274
37
730
Because orange man suggested it. Just like the virus lab leak. Public safety is of no concern, only censorship and the state narrative. With our current crop of journalists, the state narrative has never been stronger.

These vaccines and even some of the treatments ONLY have an emergency use waiver. This eliminates law suits and a vehicle or instrument for financial compensation. It protects the manufacturers and medical personal and leaves your family without remedy....or any protection at all. You volunteered for the vaccine. They have to ask you, and you have to agree. No one can force you. It's a choice, one is not required to have any medical procedure. Not yet.

Covid vaccines have killed more perfectly healthy people, than all previous vaccines combined. The media has not reported this yet, just like they didn't report about the lab leak. Our news media is a farce. Accusation and gossip with a false morality has replaced facts.

As this virus wanes, the truth will come out. Because this is the largest man made disaster of all time. And we have American academia to thank for it. This research was banned here years ago. They will proclaim it was good intentions.......that murdered millions. The consultation fees, publications, famed reputations and patent money meant nothing. It was for the children. Lying and cheating for the children. Sound good? The media will love it and tell you, what wonderful people they are.

Before this virus, over 500,000 died each year of documented medical malpractice. This does not include the disabled.

Numbers are easy to reason and ignore, until you become one. The odds so far offered, are of no interest to me.

If you believe in this science, and you get the vaccine, what are you still afraid of? The vaccine will protect you won't it?

Forcing someone to get the vaccine is not science. It's truly educated ignorance. And I refuse that ignorance.
 
Aug 15, 2020
44
1
55
Please Review the Ivermectin studies.

Vaccine comments should be posted elsewhere in future

Ivermectin is a very safe Noble Prize winning drug with no material record of causing human or animal death or illness even at high doses given in error

However see warnings


It should be urgently studied as a Covid-19 preventative treatment

JANUARY 01, 2020
Safety of oral ivermectin during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis



Example of hospital trial

100% of the study of over 1200 Argentinean health care workers receiving ivermectin remained covid free over a 30 day time frame while 58% in the control group became infected

The study, formally titled “Usefulness of Topic Ivermectin and Carrageenan to Prevent Contagion of COVID Among Healthy People and Health Personnel” had a start date of June 1, 2020 and an estimated study completion date of August 10, 2020. The study team recruited 1,195 health professionals of which 407 received no treatment and 788 self-administered ivermectin oral drops and an iota-carrageenan nasal spray five times per day over a 14 day period.

The Results

The Argentinian study team reported that the study data revealed that of the participants in the control group (e.g. not taking the study drug combination) 58% of the participants were infected with COVID-19 during the duration of the trial. The study team reported no contagions were recorded in the ivermectin arm, showcasing the compounds’ virucidal effects can potentially protect against COVID-19.

The study’s primary endpoint in a 30 day time period was “Reduction in contagion” for health personnel.

The study team established that the aim would be to “reduce dramatically” and assuming these claims are factual the results are striking.

Out of 788 self-administered from the intervention arm, not one person fell ill to SARS-CoV-2.

Database of all ivermectin COVID-19 studies.
89 studies, 48 peer reviewed, 52 with results comparing treatment and control groups 27 with randomized control trials

98% of the 52 studies to date report positive effects (25 statistically significant in isolation). Random effects meta-analysis for early treatment and pooled effects shows an 81% reduction, RR 0.19 [0.09-0.39], and prophylactic use shows 85% improvement, RR 0.15 [0.09-0.25]. Mortality results show 76% lower mortality, RR 0.24 [0.14-0.42] for all treatment delays, and 84% lower, RR 0.16 [0.04-0.63] for early treatment.

• 96% of the 27 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) report positive effects, with an estimated 64% improvement, RR 0.36 [0.24-0.52].

• The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 52 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 85 trillion (p = 0.000000000000012).


TOO MANY COMMERCIAL CONFLICTS AGAINST IVERMECTIN
 
Last edited:
Sep 6, 2020
69
5
55
Some are listed later on [on unknown major vaccine issues]

The serious issue is the HHS/FDA/CDC has failed to report its vaccine safety improvement research for almost 40 years as required by law and it has been confirmed in a Harvard study the CDC captures/reports only 1% of USA adverse vaccine events
Reading this it comes across as you have no information and the route of conspiracy theories to fit your agenda is more correct than their being no issues?
 
Sep 6, 2020
69
5
55
Please Review the Ivermectin studies.

98% of the 52 studies to date report positive effects (25 statistically significant in isolation). Random effects meta-analysis for early treatment and pooled effects shows an 81% reduction, RR 0.19 [0.09-0.39], and prophylactic use shows 85% improvement, RR 0.15 [0.09-0.25]. Mortality results show 76% lower mortality, RR 0.24 [0.14-0.42] for all treatment delays, and 84% lower, RR 0.16 [0.04-0.63] for early treatment.

• 96% of the 27 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) report positive effects, with an estimated 64% improvement, RR 0.36 [0.24-0.52].
Changing the nature of the study to public transport to space...

Would you be happy travelling into orbit based on a 98% success from 52 attempts?
Likewise in 27 attempts, 1 crash is acceptable?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY