COVID-19 Link Dump: Rapid Diagnostic Tests, Ivermectin Works, Vax Adverse Effects, Life Insurance Doesn’t Pay for Suicide, Senator Johnson’s COVID-19 Panel, Kirsch Interviews Healthcare Workers

hospital emergency room — Do some nurses really call remdesivir, “run, death is near”?

Many drugstores and others in the U.S. are now selling over-the-counter home testing kits for “diagnosis” of COVID-19. My wife brought home a sack full of them (Flowflex made in China) for ~$8 a pop. Three months ago, CVS was selling a home test kit for $40. The Flexflow box said it was “accurate,” but not how accurate. How should these and other “rapid” diagnostic tests be used? Dr Paul Drain offers advice in NEJM:
Rapid Diagnostic Testing for SARS-CoV-2

This is not easy reading unless you’re smart or have medical background.

Prophylactic ivermectin significantly reduced infections, hospitalizations, and deaths from COVID-19 in Brazil. But that would never work here, right?

Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19: A Citywide, Prospective, Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching

Background: Ivermectin has demonstrated different mechanisms of action that potentially protect from both coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and COVID-19-related comorbidities. Based on the studies suggesting efficacy in prophylaxis combined with the known safety profile of ivermectin, a citywide prevention program using ivermectin for COVID-19 was implemented in Itajaí, a southern city in Brazil in the state of Santa Catarina. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of regular ivermectin use on subsequent COVID-19 infection and mortality rates.

In the absence of contraindications, ivermectin was offered as an optional treatment to be taken for two consecutive days every 15 days at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg/day.

Results: Of the 223,128 citizens of Itajaí considered for the study, a total of 159,561 subjects were included in the analysis: 113,845 (71.3%) regular ivermectin users and 45,716 (23.3%) non-users. Of these, 4,311 ivermectin users were infected, among which 4,197 were from the city of Itajaí (3.7% infection rate), and 3,034 non-users (from Itajaí) were infected (6.6% infection rate), with a 44% reduction in COVID-19 infection rate (risk ratio [RR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.53-0.58; p < 0.0001). Using PSM, two cohorts of 3,034 subjects suffering from COVID-19 infection were compared. The regular use of ivermectin led to a 68% reduction in COVID-19 mortality (25 [0.8%] versus 79 [2.6%] among ivermectin non-users; RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.20-0.49; p < 0.0001). When adjusted for residual variables, reduction in mortality rate was 70% (RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.19-0.46; p < 0.0001). There was a 56% reduction in hospitalization rate (44 versus 99 hospitalizations among ivermectin users and non-users, respectively; RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.31-0.63; p < 0.0001). After adjustment for residual variables, reduction in hospitalization rate was 67% (RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 023-0.66; p < 0.0001).

Conclusion: In this large PSM study, regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates.

Once Dr David Gorski sees Pierre Kory’s name among the authors, I’m sure he’ll rip this study to shreds.

Click for coverage by The FLCCC Alliance Community.

Don’t forget that the FDA never could have issued Emergency Use Authorizations for vaccines and many current drugs if they admitted there was already a single existing effect therapy or prevention for COVID-19.

Military doctors report COVID-19 vaccine-linked increases in miscarriages, neurological issues, pulmonary embolism, Bells’ palsy, cancer, female infertility, and heart attacks, and congenital malformations.

Life insurer refuses to cover vaccine death.

Although vaccination is recognized as the cause of death by doctors and the insurance company, it has refused to pay out. The reason is because the side effects of the Corona jabs are known and published. They argue that the deceased took part in an experiment at his own risk.

The insurance company justified the refusal of payment to the family by stating that the use of experimental medication or treatments, including Corona injections, is expressly excluded from the insurance contract. The family’s subsequent lawsuit against the insurance company has been unsuccessful.

The court allegedly justified its ruling as follows: “The side effects of the experimental vaccine are published and the deceased could not claim to have known nothing about it when he voluntarily took the vaccine. There is no law or mandate in France that compelled him to be vaccinated. Hence his death is essentially suicide.” Since suicide is not covered by the policy from the outset, the insurance refuses to budge.

On January 24, 2022 Senator Ron Johnson invited a group of world renowned doctors and medical experts to the U.S. Senate to provide a different perspective on the global pandemic response, the current state of knowledge of early and hospital treatment, vaccine efficacy and safety, what went right, what went wrong, what should be done now, and what needs to be addressed long term. This 38 minute video highlights the 5-hour discussion.