The administration said Monday evening that it will stop enforcing the federal mask mandate for travel — for now — after a federal judge in Florida earlier in the day struck down the CDC’s mask requirement for planes and trains, ruling that the agency overstepped its statutory authority.
An administration official said the federal government is still determining how it will respond to the ruling…
There are really three main problems with this study and its aftermath;
1) Publication Bias: given my personal knowledge of a number of researchers whose profoundly positive ivermectin studies were rejected by JAMA [Journal of the American Medical Association], they, for the second time in a row, reveal a profound publication bias. It is a well-known disinformation tactic for high impact journals like JAMA to somehow only publish studies without “statistically significant benefits” for medicines that Pharma does not want to see in play (generally generic medicines), as they similarly avoid publishing studies of “harms” associated with Pharma favored products (i.e tobacco studies last century and/or vaccine studies this one). What is fascinating is that JAMA’s (“PHAMA’s”) ivermectin papers actually all report important benefits, but most importantly for JAMA, none that reach “statistical significance.”
2) Study Conclusion: JAMA saw fit to ensure inclusion of this phrase at the end of the conclusion, “the findings do not support the use of ivermectin for treatment of mild COVID-19,” despite what could arguably be called a compellingly supportive study based on a number of important, near statistically significant reductions in secondary outcomes like death. An absurdly obvious reason why statistical significance was not reached was that, in this population of patients, like many other upcoming trials (NIH’ ACTIV-6, U Minnesota’s COVID-OUT, Oxford’s Principle trial etc) they allowed patients to enter the trial up to 7 days from first symptoms. It is well known anti-virals efficacy is strongest.. earlier. In this trial, the average time from first symptoms was 5.1 days with a confidence interval of 1.3, meaning, pretty much nobody got treatment within 3 days of symptoms. Yet, this critical feature of this trial gets ignored in the conclusion (many conclusions will include important limitations of the study’s findings, unsurprisingly, not this one).
JAMA, per their strict criteria, also consistently avoids mention in conclusion statements of large differences in massively important secondary outcomes. Best example of this behavior by JAMA was the IV Vitamin C in ARDS trial. Read the conclusion. Then read the paper, and look at Table 2 and Figure 3… you find a massive, statistically significant reduction in mortality in those treated with IV Vitamin C. Hard to find.. but it is there. If JAMA wouldn’t allow those authors to mention it in that paper’s abstract conclusion, no surprise they did it again here.
3) the masses of doctors and media who simply propagate and disseminate that sentence and abstract without reading the actual study or reviewing the actual data while ignorant of the findings from the highest level of medical evidence.. the “meta-analyses” of ivermectin (summary analyses of all trials).
I’ve got to get something off my chest, so buckle up for an overdue rant.
I can’t begin to describe the disdain and contempt I have for highly-credentialed MD’s with large platforms who are suddenly jumping on the Team Reality about COVID-19.
If we are getting out of this mess it won’t be due to MDs. They’ve abdicated their roles because most no longer are in practice for themselves and must rely on CMS [Medicare] dollars. Whoever pays the salary makes the rules.
It’s not only “highly-credentialed MD’s” who deserve disdain and contempt.
It’s not just a list. Steve tells you why they made the cut. See also his list of top corporate misinformation spreaders, if you dare. The article is a concise summary of who’s to blame for the mismanagement of this pandemic. (Or was it managed precisely how our overlords wanted it?)
The United States remains in a heightened threat environment fueled by several factors, including an online environment filled with false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms of mis- dis- and mal-information (MDM) introduced and/or amplified by foreign and domestic threat actors. These threat actors seek to exacerbate societal friction to sow discord and undermine public trust in government institutions to encourage unrest, which could potentially inspire acts of violence. Mass casualty attacks and other acts of targeted violence conducted by lone offenders and small groups acting in furtherance of ideological beliefs and/or personal grievances pose an ongoing threat to the nation. While the conditions underlying the heightened threat landscape have not significantly changed over the last year, the convergence of the following factors has increased the volatility, unpredictability, and complexity of the threat environment: (1)the proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions; (2) continued calls for violence directed at U.S. critical infrastructure; soft targets and mass gatherings; faith-based institutions, such as churches, synagogues, and mosques; institutions of higher education; racial and religious minorities; government facilities and personnel, including law enforcement and the military; the media; and perceived ideological opponents; and (3) calls by foreign terrorist organizations for attacks on the United States based on recent events.
#1 among factors contributing to heightened threat risk:
The proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions:
For example, there is widespread online proliferation of false or misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19. Grievances associated with these themes inspired violent extremist attacks during 2021. [Huh?]
Thank God the threat expires at 1400 hrs June 7, 2022. How will I ever sleep at night until then.
Never forget, comrades, that our governments and gov’t institutions can do no wrong. So don’t criticize them or you may be visited by the FBI. Or worse.
Posted onJanuary 30, 2022|Comments Off on 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
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?
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.
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.
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.
Comments Off on 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
Cellular increases in oxidative stress (OxS) and decline in mitochondrial function are identified as key defects in aging, but underlying mechanisms are poorly understood and interventions are lacking. Defects linked to OxS and impaired mitochondrial fuel oxidation, such as inflammation, insulin resistance, endothelial dysfunction, and aging hallmarks, are present in older humans and are associated with declining strength and cognition, as well as the development of sarcopenic obesity. Investigations on the origins of elevated OxS and mitochondrial dysfunction in older humans led to the discovery that deficiencies of the antioxidant tripeptide glutathione (GSH) and its precursor amino acids glycine and cysteine may be contributory. Supplementation with GlyNAC (combination of glycine and N-acetylcysteine as a cysteine precursor) was found to improve/correct cellular glycine, cysteine, and GSH deficiencies; lower OxS; and improve mitochondrial function, inflammation, insulin resistance, endothelial dysfunction, genotoxicity, and multiple aging hallmarks; and improve muscle strength, exercise capacity, cognition, and body composition. This review discusses evidence from published rodent studies and human clinical trials to provide a detailed summary of available knowledge regarding the effects of GlyNAC supplementation on age-associated defects and aging hallmarks, as well as discussing why GlyNAC supplementation could be effective in promoting healthy aging. It is particularly exciting that GlyNAC supplementation appears to reverse multiple aging hallmarks, and if confirmed in a randomized clinical trial, it could introduce a transformative paradigm shift in aging and geriatrics. GlyNAC supplementation could be a novel nutritional approach to improve age-associated defects and promote healthy aging, and existing data strongly support the need for additional studies to explore the role and impact of GlyNAC supplementation in aging.
Increasing numbers of physicians and the general public are starting to agree with Pardy.
For most people, Omicron is a highly contagious cold. Lots will catch it, and most will get sniffles and a sore throat. Yes, even with Omicron, as with the flu, some people will get seriously ill, and a few will die. Masking, social distancing, capacity limits, lockdowns, curfews, and “vaccines” are not stopping the spread. People who dodge Omicron this time will face the next variant, or the one after that. Like other respiratory viruses in circulation, COVID-19 is here to stay.
Therefore, COVID is done. Either mild Omicron is the end of COVID madness, or there is no off-ramp.
Will the next SARS-CoV-2 variant be more or less virulent than omicron? Only time will tell. From the start of this pandemic, some virologists were saying that the natural history of these viruses is to become less virulent as they evolve.
Have you noticed we don’t have vaccines for the common cold? Either the scientists don’t know how to make an effective one, or it’s just not worth the cost of development and deployment. Not to mention the medical risks of vaccines. For all we know, it’s good for us to fight off a common cold once or twice a year. Keeps our immune system tuned up.
Seeing the public’s hair-on-fire response to the national lack of testing over the last week, I’m wondering if we all really need to be tested for COVID-19 when we have symptoms. We don’t all run to the doctor when we have a head cold or viral bronchitis or laryngitis. Those are transmittable to those around you. If you’re sick with those, don’t go to work. Avoid others and take precautions to protect them if un-avoidable. Especially stay away from the elderly and those with poor immune systems or illnesses that would increase the risk of death if they caught your infection. The folks who truly need a reliable COVID-19 test when symptomatic are the candidates for early outpatient anti-viral treatment, such as the elderly and others at high risk for serious COVID-19.
IIRC, the CDC says there’s no need for a repeat COVID-19 PCR test to prove you’re no longer infectious to others. As long as you’re five (or ten?) days out from your last fever or symptoms, you are unlikely to be shedding infectious virus. But you can shed non-infectious viral debris that PCR can detect for up to 12 weeks after illness resolution.
Now the World Health Organization has waved the white flag on Covid vaccine boosters too.
WHO released a statement about Covid vaccines yesterday. It’s filled with the usual public health jargon and ass-covering, but one line stands out:
a vaccination strategy based on repeated booster doses of the original vaccine composition is unlikely to be appropriate or sustainable.
It’s over, people.
Aside from a few unlucky Israelis, no one is going to receive a fourth dose of the original vaccine; everyone with eyes can see it doesn’t work against Omicron. (And if you haven’t gotten a third dose, at this point, why would you? You are getting at most weeks of marginally improved protection for potentially severe side effects.)
The Stalinist-era Soviet Union was notorious for stripping dissidents of their professional credentials and subjecting them to psychiatric inquisitions. Today, the USA is following in the USSR’s footsteps. An early victim—and a canary in the proverbial coal mine—is Maine physician Meryl Nass.
On January 11 Maine’s Board of Licensure in Medicine suspended Dr. Nass’s license and ordered her to undergo a psychiatric exam, stating: “In the interests of public health and safety the Board may compel a physician to submit to a mental or physical examination upon a complaint or allegation that the physician is or may be unable to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety to patients by reason of a mental illness, alcohol intemperance, excessive use of drugs narcotics, or as a result of a mental or physical condition interfering with the competent practice of medicine.”
Dr. Nass is not a drug or alcohol abuser. She is obviously perfectly sane. Indeed, she is uncommonly lucid and articulate….
As a complement to vaccines, small-molecule therapeutic agents are needed to treat or prevent infections by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its variants, which cause COVID-19. Affinity selection-mass spectrometry was used for the discovery of botanical ligands to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Cannabinoid acids from hemp (Cannabis sativa) were found to be allosteric as well as orthosteric ligands with micromolar affinity for the spike protein. In follow-up virus neutralization assays, cannabigerolic acid and cannabidiolic acid prevented infection of human epithelial cells by a pseudovirus expressing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and prevented entry of live SARS-CoV-2 into cells. Importantly, cannabigerolic acid and cannabidiolic acid were equally effective against the SARS-CoV-2 alpha variant B.1.1.7 and the beta variant B.1.351. Orally bioavailable and with a long history of safe human use, these cannabinoids, isolated or in hemp extracts, have the potential to prevent as well as treat infection by SARS-CoV-2.
On Dec 23, 2021, FDA gave Emergency Use Authorization to molnupiravir as outpatient treatment for COVID-19 in high-risk patients 18 and older. “High risk” means high risk for hospitalization or death from COVID-19. Users need a positive COVID-19 test and should start treatment as early as possible, within five days of symptom onset.
The drug reduced hospitalization and death by 30%. FDA approval was based on a clinical study that included only ~700 patients who got the pill. I assume there were 700 others who got a placebo.
By comparison, Pfizer’s Paxlovid reduced hospitalization and death by 90%.
The dose is 800 mg by mouth every 12 hours for five days. Available capsules contain 200 mg.
The drug is well-tolerated. Most common side effects are diarrhea, nausea, and dizziness.
No known drug interactions. This is an advantage over Pfizer’s Paxlovid pill.
No dose adjustment needed for kidney disease, liver disease, or old age. Another advantage over Paxlovid.
The drug could be dangerous to embryos/fetuses. Don’t get pregnant while taking this! Male users need to use reliable birth control for the three months after use.