He placed the disclaimer on my request. It's nothing about what it is, it's to make clear that it is no medical advice. It's for legal purpose. I also put such a disclaimer when talked about certain drugs. You find such disclaimer everywhere at medical videos, too. A legal medical advice only exists between a physician / patient relationship. Not even if one would be a physician you cannot make such an advice to somebody who is not an own patient. The individual physical / medical circumstances / conditions are unknown. I wanted to have that clear on MDL.
And on that note of responsibility and "adults in the room"... https://inews.co.uk/news/health/covid-uk-surging-cases-scientists-angry-lack-of-action-1540685
Medical mysteries of the 21st century Once upon a time (not so long ago, actually), mankind did not understand why so many women died after childbirth. That tremendous disease, puerperal fever (now we know it was caused by beta-hemolytic streptococcus), was common and killed mercilessly. Nobody understood it, but a physician, Ignaz Semmelweiss, understood - because he was observant (an indispensable quality in a physician and in a scientist) and because he was brave (another indispensable quality in a physician and in a scientist) - that it was the poor or non-existent hygiene of physicians that was associated with puerperal fever: they did not wash their hands (or wear gloves) after performing autopsies, and so, dirty and with the same clothes, they attended deliveries. Now it seems logical to us that hand washing should be done properly, and it probably disgusts us to imagine doctors, with blood and viscera under their fingernails, while palpating the cervix of a parturient, but for the doctors of the late 19th century to be asked to wash their hands with a solution of calcium hypochlorite (CaOCl2) was inadmissible. Sacrilege! If physicians were sources of wisdom and purity, they could not be responsible for that disease. So, for years, it remained a mystery why women got sick. Surely more than one thought 'they must have done something to deserve it'. The mystery ceased to be a mystery when the paradigm changed and now antisepsis is part of medical life and life in general (taken, in recent years, to the absurd, but that is another topic). What I am trying to say is that the difference between reasoned knowledge and a mystery is often time, paradigm and - I fear - obscure reasons that do not wish that reasoned knowledge to permeate. What am I referring to? To the great 'mystery' of most African countries, which seem almost immune to COVID-19: https://fortune.com/2022/03/23/africa-covid-immunity-medical-mystery-mortality-rates-europe/. It is not the first time that this mystery causes headaches or other symptoms of long COVID in the industrialized world (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7506193/). But, after more than two years of pandemic, the official narrative is scratching its head and asking: How can it be? Could it be divine justice for so much plunder suffered at the hands of "first world" countries? Could it be that "the African" and "the European" have genetic differences that explain it? (https://www.pasteur.fr/en/africans-...une-systems-and-neanderthals-had-something-do) How is it that 99 times more people die of COVID-19 in France (country of equality, liberty and fraternity) than in Sierra Leone, where there are 4. 6 times fewer doctors and which ranks 160th out of 196 in terms of lowest economic countries (https://countryeconomy.com/gdp/sier...re in 202020,196 countries that we we publish.). Could it be that they are not reporting or diagnosing properly? (they've already raised it, of course: https://blogs.worldbank.org/africacan/could-covid-19-deaths-kenya-be-higher-official-records), but if so, even if they weren't called "COVID-19 deaths", there would be a surplus of deaths, and that hasn't been observed for most African countries. It is a "medical mystery" or frankly an affront to the civilized world that acted so well against this epidemiological threat! Hmm... or could it be that, perhaps, the medical and scientific community (not all, but many) has forgotten some central concepts and has lost the critical reasoning that allows it to understand something that is actually quite easy to understand and thus solve this mystery? First, the vast majority of African countries did not practice isolations, business shutdowns, 'healthy distance' and the use of 'high-tech' cover-ups. Because they are rebels? No. Because they cannot afford to do so. Their economy does not allow it. If they isolate themselves, they don't eat. On the other hand, comparatively speaking, daily contact (not only in pandemics, but for decades) with different microorganisms (commensals and antagonists) is much higher in "third world" countries and this has had several impacts. Many negative, of course: children dying from parasitic infections that are completely preventable is morally reprehensible and ethically unacceptable. However, it has also influenced their immune responses, their immunomodulation. Pathogens (viruses, bacteria, protists, fungi) and commensal and mutualistic microorganisms are selection factors that 'shape' the variability that humans manifest, including their immune responses. As I have explained for SARS-CoV-2 (see: https://odysee.com/@AkashaCommunity:f/The-pandemic-and-its-management-from-Darwin's-view-:1), we humans are also influenced by natural selection. The conditions under which people live in most African countries have been pressures that have "selected" (given an advantage) to certain types of immune responses. In the context of SARS-CoV-2, that evolutionary baggage has been great, and from a more current perspective, having the immune system "trained up" and ready to act in a swift and non-crazy way (sound familiar with cytokine storms? That's an example of a crazy immune response), has been great for people in Africa. Most people in African countries have a functional immune system that has not been in a bubble of healthy distance and chinstrap for two years (see: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5010150/). On the other hand, in cases where a person infected with SARS-CoV-2 develops severe COVID-19, this is mostly due to a very marked immune dysregulation, which responds very well to immunomodulators. Among them, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. I will not go into the discussion of whether they are "horse drugs"; I have already given many references and even a seminar on their mechanism of action (in hominid primates, needless to say!). If you are curious, you can see, for example: #The_antiviral_action_of_amantadine, #Ivermectin_for_treatment_and_prevention #Ivermectin_study_UK, https://odysee.com/@akashacommunity...7_Preventive_and_Symptomatic_Treatments-(2):e. The important thing to remember here is that the use of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine is very frequent, almost daily in many African countries, as it allows to treat very common parasitic diseases (such as Malaria or Onchocerciasis) in those countries. Although I have no numerical data on its use in the COVID-19 pandemic, at least we know that these countries are not afraid of these drugs (known for their high safety and on the WHO list of essential medicines), do not prohibit their sale, and do not vilify them as "horse drugs". Finally, the vaccination rate against COVID-19 is practically nil in most African countries (as of March 25, 2022, less than 0.1% of people have been vaccinated in the entire continent, according to WHO and Johns Hopkins University data). Geez! No way. Weren't vaccines the only way to protect ourselves and survive this threat? Africans must know or sense something that the rest of the world ignores. Could this medical mystery be due to the different approach used in most African countries during these two years? Ah, the medical mysteries of the 21st century .... https://t.me/akashacomunidad/1226
Just in case one missed it: Scientists are angry, however, saying that the relaxation of restrictions is causing a massive resurgence of infection across the UK. Dr Stephen Griffin, associate professor in the school of medicine, at the University of Leeds, said: “Blinding ourselves to this level of harm does not constitute living with a virus infection, quite the opposite. Public health has seemingly dropped dramatically on the list of this Government’s priorities, to the detriment of the UK population as a whole. “The frustration at the lack of mitigations that could so easily curtail this surge is tangible for many; without sufficient vaccination, ventilation, masking, isolation and testing, we will continue to ‘live with’ disruption, disease and sadly, death, as a result. If the Government continues to ignore advice from (now foolishly disbanded) SAGE, independent SAGE, and the World Health Organisation, we as a nation will sadly reap what they have sown.”
A jolly tweet: "35,000 deaths since freedom day, the highest rates of long COVID in education staff, HCWs, & tripling of long COVID in children since freedom day. And the NHS isn't able to provide reliable life-saving care, and the highest A&E waits ever. This is what success looks like." It was a response to this twit, ex-health minister, M. Hancock: Our strategy - to suppress the virus until the vaccine made us safe - has made us the first major country to exit the pandemic, and we can now live with Covid like we do many other diseases like flu. My piece today on moving past the pandemic https://t.co/HDvjwCzbhE 3/3
The underlying issue is more complex and far more tragic.... There is censorship on social media platforms and YouTube. Youtube and other media complexes are following a directive which defends all the vaccines. Anything that could be against them is censored at first place regardless of there is scientific evidence or not. Actually it is not allowed to have an opposite view to the narrative. And there is no culture of scientific discourse anymore.... I cannot assess chlorine dioxide because I do not know enough about. But I can professionally assess ivermectin. It has been discredited as 'horse medicine' although it is effective against SARS-COV-2. By this discrediting campaign thousands of fatal outcomes of COVID have been 'accepted' which clearly would have been avoidable. I am a researcher and I neither go after the person who suggests a drug nor do I suffer from prejudice. And I also am tired of attacking person instead of getting familiar with content and counter arguing.. You always have to ask yourself: Are you able to scientifically categorize a drug like ClO2 or IVM??? Or are you just a victim who is parroting a narrative? I bet most of those can NOT assess a drug due to lack of scientific background. One always should ask oneself. Do you know what you are denying? Do you know what are you accepting? Or do you follow a narrative without having own knowledge?
News: The first time where researches say "persistent" "Persistent Cardiac MRI Findings in a Cohort of Adolescents with post COVID-19 mRNA vaccine myopericarditis" https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(22)00282-7/fulltext Edit: 30/03 "CDC coding error led to overcount of 72,000 Covid deaths" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/24/cdc-coding-error-overcount-covid-deaths We clearly can notice that there is an OVERcount when it comes to COVID related fatalities (or data that makes COVID to be appear more dangerous) and an UNDERreporting when it comes to vaccine adverse events AND their severity. So we get presented a distorted view on the pandemic and on the vaccines. This is with intent! I mean a coding error at an authority like CDC that persisted more than 2 years? The real benefit of the vaccines and the real damage of COVID will probably never objectively turn out...but it's always one direction. COVID is in fact less fatal and the vaccines are in fact more harmful. So if you try to find a rationality there, it's IS conform (the way real data is bent) to all those who want to make most profits from the vaccines. They have interest in a most fearful event (pandemic) and most 'effective' monopolistic products.
For those who understand a little german.. https://ibb.co/8K3dkLr and.... On the 23rd of march the british government has confirmed, that 80% of newly infected had been vaccinated and 92% of those now dying had also been vaccinated. After Public Health Scotland the UKHSA has now also stopped publishing information about new infections, hospital admissions and death... From today, April 1st, no more data will be publishes giving the vaccination status of such cases, as the numbers counter the national vaccination strategy. again for those with little knowledge of german https://ibb.co/wp9XqjB And... as far as Myocarditis is concerned you might want to have a look at what the Journal of Pediatrics has to say about it. PS Everything I wrote above is only stuff I found TODAY.... (without much searching)
@Yen, you may want to revisit this assertion that somehow 72000 is a "game changer" - given your proclivities towards "not big enough numbers for this to be called a pandemic"... It just doesn't stack up against millions dead worldwide... actually, it looks a bit laughable, if only this was a laughing matter... Anyway: "ivermectin was ineffective at preventing hospitalizations from COVID-19" Today, the large size of the randomized, placebo-controlled trial, known as a gold standard for evaluating treatments, tilts the weight of evidence away from ivermectin benefits for COVID-19, according to the study authors. The team published its findings yesterday in the New England Journal of Medicine. No benefit for any clinical outcome The study was part of a larger double-blind trial that looked at various interventions, including ivermectin, across 12 sites in Brazil's Minas Gerais state. For the ivermectin arm of the study, researchers enrolled 3,515 lab-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 patients, of which 679 were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin, 679 were assigned to placebo, and 2,157 were assigned to another intervention. Those in the ivermectin group received it once a day for 3 days at 400 micrograms per body weight, which the authors said in the supplementary appendix was a relatively high dose, ensuring its safety compared with most earlier trials. When the researchers weighted the two groups, 100 (14.7%) patients who received ivermectin had a primary outcome that included hospitalization or lengthy evaluation in the emergency department, compared with 111 (16.3%) the placebo group. They also found no impact on secondary outcomes, such as viral clearance, duration of hospitalization, time to clinical recovery, need for mechanical ventilation, or death from any cause. The authors wrote that earlier meta-analyses that combined the results of smaller studies were inconsistent on potential benefits for ivermectin, and they noted that their trial was larger than the number of all of the combined studies. "The results of this trial will, therefore, reduce the effect size of the meta-analyses that have indicated any benefits," they said, adding that one earlier study was withdrawn due to suspected malfeasance and that others had quality problems. The new findings are consistent with an earlier World Health Organization recommendation against ivermectin use. Weighing the clinical implications In a recorded NEJM discussion yesterday with three of the journal's editors, who weren't involved in the study, Lindsey Baden, MD, deputy editor, said that data show no signal of clinical activity in a properly conducted clinical trial. He said it's better to use active treatments rather than those we want to work but have no evidence to back them up. Eric Rubin, MD, PhD, editor-in-chief, said similar to the early days of HIV treatment, when there were few treatments, repurposed drugs were very attractive but became less so as better therapies emerged. Now for COVID-19, there are therapies. "None of them are magic, but some of them are awfully good," he said. "We can now say we have something to offer people." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34215210/ Conclusion: Ivermectin had no significant effect on preventing hospitalization of patients with COVID-19. Patients who received ivermectin required invasive MVS earlier in their treatment. No significant differences were observed in any of the other secondary outcomes.
It's actually only laughable for someone who is a fool. It is obvious, at one of the most obvious fact..noticeable....Almost every nation counts COVID fatalities as a sum of persons who died with the virus and people who died by the virus. At the vaccines there is a quite different rule: People died in a timely manner to the shot, but there is no causality. 'WITH' the virus is also NOT causal. When I am positive and I get overrun and die then I also died WITH the virus and will be counted as COVID fatality.. And also you should not forget. Whereas fatalities can be easily counted (and a certificate of death is issued for everybody who has died) to 'count' severe adverse events of vaccines is far more difficult since it is based on passive reporting. You have the talent to (deliberately?) twist the purpose of my arguments. I posted that error to inform about the error! And I posted the study to inform about persistent heart issues at young people after vaccination. And many more about that topic severe adverse events already. To support the hypothesis (below posted)... And no! I did not downplay the fatalities and by that how 'bad' COVID is, the CDC corrected the fatalities by admitting they are -72,000 lower and by that 72,000 people less did not die by it. You should ask yourself:" H: The pandemic looks more dangerous as it really is, the vaccines alre looking safer and more effective as they are." Would you be able to recognize it? (Concerning effectiveness they already had to 'downgrade' them more and more and more. Concerning safety they are stubborn although there are more and more studies about adverse events published. Not to speak about the Pfizer data manipulating and issues at their vaccine study that lead to EUA) The art of science is now to compare this study to studies where it has a significant effect. To compare the cohorts, the outcome, the endpoints. To think if there might be a rational explanation for the difference, discourse...And to check the study for design flaws.... It's not rare that scientific studies are different in result. I know that, too. Most capitalistic companies do only present the studies where it works. But everybody who is able to (knows about studies and design) and is without conflict of interest can compare such and come to an own conclusion. I will read the study thoroughly, I don't have any interests of conflicts. I do not 'want' that IVM works, I want an open and fair discourse. And personally I 'know' that it works. It's not about 'me' it's about shouldn't we simply let the doctors doctor with it without getting discredited?!? THEN we all will know which study was right. I mean 'they' have EUA'd new stuff that has a far worse safety profile than IVM (and even does not work AKA Remdesivir)
YES! You did minimise the numbers in the most absurd of manners - and that from a person who claimed the pandemic is not a pandemic because "the numbers (fatalities) are too low"! Sorry, you can't have it both ways! You should ask yourself one question: if there were no fatalities in my immediate surroundings is it really not happening anywhere else, for anyone else?!? "Capitalistic companies" - interesting... You're giving a right signal and turning - left?!? Well, well, well... I'll be damned... Weirder things have happened but this is a bit "heavy"... Btw, you are not independent by any stretch of imagination - we have seen your bias emerge quite clearly, so... You can not know on your own example if something works generally, so there's that. There's one study that claimed that IVM alone shortened the course of disease by 3 days. That's it. Now this one... And you choose to ignore it. On all sorts of grounds - BEFORE you have any idea as to how it was imagined or conducted... Well... that speaks volumes... Sorry but this had to be said... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...rotection-to-previously-infected-studies-show Covid vaccines give extra protection to previously infected, studies show Research published by Lancet confirms jabs add protection for people who have had Covid, especially against severe disease The studies underline the benefits of getting vaccinated regardless of whether someone has had Covid. Andrew Gregory Health editor Covid-19 vaccines provide significant extra protection for people who have already been infected, according to two new studies. The jabs have proven highly effective in protecting those who have never had Covid, but their effectiveness at preventing symptoms and severe outcomes in people who have previously been infected has, until recently, been less clear. Now two separate pieces of research, published in the Lancet Infectious Diseases journal, confirm that Covid-19 vaccines provide additional protection for people who have already been infected with Sars-CoV-2 – especially against severe disease. In the first study, conducted in Brazil, researchers found that four vaccines – CoronaVac, Oxford/AstraZeneca, Janssen and Pfizer/BioNTech – provide extra protection against symptomatic reinfection and severe outcomes such as hospitalisation and death in people who had previously caught coronavirus. The second study, from Sweden, found that vaccination against Covid-19 provided additional protection to those who had had Covid before, for at least nine months. Together, the studies provide crucial data on vaccine effectiveness in people with a prior infection and underline the benefits of getting vaccinated regardless of whether someone has had Covid. Experts say the findings could also help inform global vaccine strategies.
I have been neither right nor left. IVM is off patent hence you will find most of studies which do not suffer from capitalistic interests and manipulation. Also the study maker is not the seller of the product. So you get a more objective impression compared to the Pfizer vaccine and Merck (Molnupiravir). The latter had one medium study with medium results which they published, but there are studies with bad outcome, too. Anyway it got EUA. The same applies to Remdesivir. It is known that big pharma which is also the study maker does not like to publish questionable studies. I mean court order, remember? Not to speak of the official announcement of Merck on IVM. It is simply full of lies. But there are good meds (at least what we know so far). Monoclonal antibodies and Paxlovid. I cannot ignore what I do not know. (yet).