.
Original data screenshot from the New South Wales (Australia) government website, data for the period ending 31 Dec 2022..
"Association Between Vaccines and EXCESS MORTALITY Getting Stronger -- and is Discussed in UK Parliament", by Igor Chudov, 6-Now-2022This is Counterintuitive and Concerning!
Please take a minute to understand that increasing the strength of association, as time passes after the event causing the association (vaccination), is very unusual very worrisome
What is going on? The clock is ticking; unvaccinated people are not really getting vaccinated anymore. And yet, as time goes on, more and more excess deaths are explained by vaccination rate (49% in weeks 20-44, instead of 27% 10 weeks prior). Vaccination rate, for the most part, refers to vaccinations that happened in the relatively distant past, a year ago or so. Something is happening in the bodies of people who were mostly vaccinated over a year ago that increases the degree of that association of vaccines vs. deaths as time goes on!
Stop. This is NOT normal.
Consider a typical poison like rat poison. Let’s say that a careless cook accidentally sprinkled varying amounts of rat poison over the salads of restaurant visitors. Some received more, some less, so some would die of rat poison. It would be understandable to expect that “restaurant visit” was associated with “excess mortality” of unfortunate diners within the first week or two after the visit. A year later, though, we would not be expecting any such relationship as the effects of poison wear off. However, the association of vaccination (distant past event) with mortality (present event) is increasing as time goes on!
What could explain it? To be honest, I am not certain. I can offer two explanations:
Vaccination has a delayed effect that causes excess mortality to increase. Regular poisons do not do that. Carcinogens do exactly that. They set a chain of biological processes in motion that lead to increased mortality down the road.
Vaccination had negative AND positive effects on mortality, and the positive effects are wearing out. Covid vaccines did, a while ago, provide some protection from Covid deaths. However, as time went on, that protection dwindled. So, as protective effects dwindle and negative effects continue, the explanatory power of vaccinations may be increasing.
.
New Brazilian study: Kerr L, Baldi F, Lobo R, et al. (August 31, 2022) Regular Use of Ivermectin as Prophylaxis for COVID-19 Led Up to a 92% Reduction in COVID-19 Mortality Rate in a Dose-Response Manner: Results of a Prospective Observational Study of a Strictly Controlled Population of 88,012 Subjects. Cureus 14(8): e28624. doi:10.7759/cureus.28624 Quote:Conclusion
Non-use of ivermectin was associated with a 12.5-fold increase in mortality rate and a seven-fold increased risk of dying from COVID-19 compared to the regular use of ivermectin. This dose-response efficacy reinforces the prophylactic effects of ivermectin against COVID-19.
.History of global campaign to discredit, suppress and ultimately ban Ivermectin drug. Reposting from Dr. Pierre Kory's Substack blog 25-Aug-2022:
You can make a weak or moderate recommendation solely on observational trials data! Plus, the unparalleled safety profile of ivermectin combined with the existing highly positive data in over 1,000 patients and 12 randomized controlled trials should have led to at a minimum a weak recommendation in the midst of a humanitarian catastrophe (the winter of 2020-2021 was particularly brutal in U.S hospitals). However, had they done that, the entire country’s (and world’s) doctors would have started treating all COVID patients with ivermectin. They knew they could not do provide any recommendation stronger than “neutral.” Plus Fauci would never let that happen (remember, as a public servant, it is well documented that he has worked in the service of the pharmaceutical industry his entire career). So that's what they did. There was a lot of attention on Ivermectin after my testimony so they had to do something. Knowing what I know now of the immense powers of Big Pharma, I suspect that even if they had delivered a “weak” recommendation for use, it may not have moved the needle much. I say this largely because the market competitors of ivermectin had many other tactics they could use (and did) to prevent widespread adoption (i.e. their devastatingly effective “horse dewormer” public relations campaign deployed using synchronized messaging amongst all major TV, radio, and print outlets. Plus they probably knew that the WHO was going to update their recommendations based on Andy and his team's continued research over the next two months, so they punted. I would argue that they knew the fix was in at the WHO already. But this is when things get even crazier.
Paul and I read his posted pre-print review and were shocked. The conclusions did not match the data. For the first time in my career, I found myself reading a scientific manuscript by a researcher presenting such profound and compelling data yet whose conclusions argued against the findings. If there is anything that scientists and researchers tend to do when publishing original work, is that they tend to over-interpret the potential importance and impact of their data. But here there was such overwhelmingly positive data yet the paper and conclusions read as if the conclusions were very uncertain and too “heterogenous” to act on. In addition, it was poorly written, with repeated expressions of the limitations of the data including false statements about how effective concentrations could not be reached with standard dosing (something we knew Andy knew was false). In addition the conclusion did not match the data presented. Paul and I immediately suspected scientific misconduct was occurring so we immediately wrote to Andy with our concerns and provided him with a complete peer-review of his paper containing our many comments and recommendations for changes. We demanded that he immediately take down his paper and implement the suggested revisions to be more consistent with the existing data. Among other demands, we asked that he remove the statements about how effective concentrations could not be reached in the blood with standard doses (we had as a group presented data disproving that to the NIH). Further we called out the numerous irregularities in his paper like the repetitive citation of the “limitations” of the data presented.
We knew something was off, like really off and so did Tess. But we didn’t know exactly what was going on “behind the scenes.” It was not until a year later when we found out who and what were behind these manipulations trying to distort and suppress the evidence of efficacy of ivermectin. Those details were uncovered by a man named Phil Harper. I consider him a polymath with a diverse background of interests and accomplishments having worked in journalism and documentary filmmaking among other pursuits. He was a UK citizen and had been living in India during the early pandemic and was shocked when he returned to UK in mid-to-late 2021 and found a country without any early treatment strategy that was instead attacking, suppressing, and legislating against ivermectin which was in wide use at the time in India. So he dug into the topic. Note his Substack is called “the Digger” and it is masterful. What he discovered about the events that occurred over those weeks is absolutely stunning. I credit his work and his publications on his Substack with much of the finer and personal details of what I will present as having happened over those weeks. Please read it. Please also consider donating to help fund his proposed documentary project called “The Research Cartel.” I believe it will have major impacts on exposing all that is rotten in medical research.
It is an astounding video. Andy actually admitted to Tess that his “sponsors” influenced the writing of the paper. Tess asked him for names but he refused. And we all know that whoever had altered that paper they were not listed as an author of the paper. This was clear scientific misconduct. She included the most relevant parts of this meeting in a devastatingly effective video called “A Letter to Andrew Hill” which essentially covers all of the most relevant and impactful events that I am detailing in these posts. I have included it at the end of Part 2. It is a must watch and likely communicates more than I ever can with words. Please hang in, hold, read this through, and then watch the video.
So, who was the person making all the changes attacking ivermectin in Andy’s paper? Not mentioned during the recorded meeting with Tess Lawrie and Andrew Hill, but Hill later referenced a person named Dominique Costagliola. What is fascinating is that Phil Harper, acting as a journalist (which he is), actually got Andrew Hill to meet him for coffee in London to do an interview about ivermectin. He purposely gave Andy the sense that he was a “friendly” reporter doing a hit piece on ivermectin. By the time of that interview, Andy had been actively attacking the evidence in support of ivermectin. I suspect he was probably eager to take advantage of yet another opportunity to please his paymasters. Phil even got Andy to confirm that he had been discussing the paper with Dominique Costagliola during that earlier time period and that she had been advising him in some way. Twitter users quizzed her on it and she too confirmed it.
So what did Phil find out about Dominique Costagliola?I maintain that she is the one who inserted that bizarre weird phrase that no researcher or scientist would ever put in their conclusion, you know the one about “regulatory approval.” Phil discovered that in March 2021, she even used the same phrase in a tweet:
- She is the Deputy Director of the Pierre Louis Institute of Epidemiology and Public Health in France.
- She speaks English as a 2nd language (this is important as the other “influencer” of Andy that you will soon meet below is English)
- She had a history of attacking ivermectin, starting very soon after my testimony on the 19th of December 2020, as evidenced in this article “fact checking” the idea that ivermectin was effective in COVID. That article essentially started the narrative refrain we hear about still to this day - “the trials were are small, low quality” and that “proper, large rigorous” (i.e. Pharma controlled) trials are needed to validate the findings.
- She is a Pharma-conflicted individual just like all the other research and regulatory agency operatives working against ivermectin. She receives lecture fees from nearly every corporation with a competing product against ivermectin. Janssen, Gilead, Merck-Sharp and Dome (biopharmaceutical company), Viiv, Innavirvax and Merck Switzerland. She has taken money in the form of lecture fees, personal fees, and travel and meeting expenses.
What Phil discovered next, to me, is the “Scoop of the Century” given that I call what these people and others (Hi Billy G!) did to ivermectin, the “Crime of the Century.” Phil discovered who was really in control of both Andy and the evidence supporting ivermectin. It was the Professor that Andy had mentioned to me in our first ever conversation. Phil discovered the Professor’s identity by simply looking at the “meta data” embedded in the PFD file of the preprint paper. It was finalized on the computer of Professor Andrew Owen of the University of Liverpool in the days leading up to the posting. Whoa. Thus, this was the same Professor that had suggested to Andy to “look into ivermectin” in November of 2020. On what evidence do I make this claim? Not only the fact that Andy’s paper was doctored on the computer of Professor Owen but also on his insane conflicts of interest against ivermectin. Again, I maintain he was getting Andy to do “opposition research” without Andy knowing he was working for the other side at the time. Owen’s Big Pharma conflicts with competing products to ivermectin are unparalleled. Costagliola’s pales in comparison.
They reported 70 deaths per 1000 in the standard-of-care treated patients vs. 14 deaths per 1000 in ivermectin treated patients. An 80% reduction in mortality. Let me repeat that. An 80% reduction in mortality. Remdesivir doesn’t do that. Paxlovid doesn’t do that. Molnupiravir doesn’t do that. Monoclonal antibodies don’t do that. And Owen had conflicts with three of these “competitors” (it was not even close to a competition, except in price and profit potential).
.The data is not fully verified. I used the reference links and borrowed some words from this post Comment by Captain Sunset on Hyperlipid
The study found no difference between the treated group versus the control group in the viral load detected by PCR, but treated patients recovered twice as fast.
Title: "The effect of early treatment with ivermectin on viral load, symptoms and humoral response in patients with non-severe COVID-19: A pilot, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial", by Carlos Chaccour et al., The Lancet, January 19, 2021
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30464-8/fulltext
.
An article published by Günter Kampf in The Lancet, Letters, 19-Nov-2021.
Quote:
High COVID-19 vaccination rates were expected to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in populations by reducing the number of possible sources for transmission and thereby to reduce the burden of COVID-19 disease. Recent data, however, indicate that the epidemiological relevance of COVID-19 vaccinated individuals is increasing. In the UK it was described that secondary attack rates among household contacts exposed to fully vaccinated index cases was similar to household contacts exposed to unvaccinated index cases (25% for vaccinated vs 23% for unvaccinated). 12 of 31 infections in fully vaccinated household contacts (39%) arose from fully vaccinated epidemiologically linked index cases. Peak viral load did not differ by vaccination status or variant type [[1]]. In Germany, the rate of symptomatic COVID-19 cases among the fully vaccinated (“breakthrough infections”) is reported weekly since 21. July 2021 and was 16.9% at that time among patients of 60 years and older [[2]]. This proportion is increasing week by week and was 58.9% on 27. October 2021 (Figure 1) providing clear evidence of the increasing relevance of the fully vaccinated as a possible source of transmission. A similar situation was described for the UK. Between week 39 and 42, a total of 100.160 COVID-19 cases were reported among citizens of 60 years or older. 89.821 occurred among the fully vaccinated (89.7%), 3.395 among the unvaccinated (3.4%) [[3]]. One week before, the COVID-19 case rate per 100.000 was higher among the subgroup of the vaccinated compared to the subgroup of the unvaccinated in all age groups of 30 years or more. In Israel a nosocomial outbreak was reported involving 16 healthcare workers, 23 exposed patients and two family members. The source was a fully vaccinated COVID-19 patient. The vaccination rate was 96.2% among all exposed individuals (151 healthcare workers and 97 patients). Fourteen fully vaccinated patients became severely ill or died, the two unvaccinated patients developed mild disease [[4]]. The US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identifies four of the top five counties with the highest percentage of fully vaccinated population (99.9–84.3%) as “high” transmission counties [[5]]. Many decisionmakers assume that the vaccinated can be excluded as a source of transmission. It appears to be grossly negligent to ignore the vaccinated population as a possible and relevant source of transmission when deciding about public health control measures.
.
Our group has been using the PLUS Cardiac Test (GD Biosciences, Inc, Irvine, CA) a clinically validated measurement of multiple protein biomarkers which generates a score predicting the 5 yr risk (percentage chance) of a new Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS). The score is based on changes from the norm of multiple protein biomarkers including IL-16, a proinflammatory cytokine, soluble Fas, an inducer of apoptosis, and Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF)which serves as a marker for chemotaxis of T-cells into epithelium and cardiac tissue, among other markers. Elevation above the norm increases the PULS score, while decreases below the norm lowers the PULS score.The score has been measured every 3-6 months in our patient population for 8 years. Recently, with the advent of the mRNA COVID 19 vaccines (vac) by Moderna and Pfizer, dramatic changes in the PULS score became apparent in most patients.This report summarizes those results. A total of 566 pts, aged 28 to 97, M:F ratio 1:1 seen in a preventive cardiology practice had a new PULS test drawn from 2 to 10 weeks following the 2nd COVID shot and was compared to the previous PULS score drawn 3 to 5 months previously pre- shot. Baseline IL-16 increased from 35=/-20 above the norm to 82 =/- 75 above the norm post-vac; sFas increased from 22+/- 15 above the norm to 46=/-24 above the norm post-vac; HGF increased from 42+/-12 above the norm to 86+/-31 above the norm post-vac. These changes resulted in an increase of the PULS score from 11% 5 yr ACS risk to 25% 5 yr ACS risk. At the time of this report, these changes persist for at least 2.5 months post second dose of vac.We conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.
.
It is interesting to note that "The Age Standardised Mortality Rate per 100,000" figures given in Table 18 (i.e. 8.38, 4.93, 1.93 for the unv., 1-va and 2-va, for the 11-17 of September) are inconsistent with the population va rates and the number of deaths in each category. These rates are probably adjusted and corrected for other factors. Unfortunately they did not explain (or I missed it) how exactly they were adjusted and corrected. |
| Table 18 (from the above-report) |
 |
| Age-Standardised Mortality Rate referenced in Table 18. |
.
In 2005, Drs. Weissman and Kariko discovered a way to protect foreign mRNA from the body’s immune system. That scientific milestone would be key to the advancement of the mRNA vaccines in 2020.
Recently, the University of Pennsylvania Tweeted a picture of the Drs. Weissman and Kariko receiving their Covid vaccination, and reminding us of that milestone. One tweet commenting that they should receive the Nobel prize for their discovery.
The fundamental change discovered by Weissman and Kariko was that nucleoside modification could protect mRNA from the body’s immune defences:
[picture]
Their key discovery, that by modifying the RNA code (modifying the nucleoside uridine), resulted in ablating the innate immune response, involved toll-like receptors (TLR).
This discovery was adopted in the mRNA technology used in Covid vaccines, in order that the foreign vaccine mRNA could enter cells without being destroyed.
...
By modifying the Uridine in the Pfizer vaccine mRNA code, the foreign mRNA is able to bypass part of the body’s first line of defence — the Innate Immune System.
The body possesses two broad parts to its immune system: innate and specific. The innate is the first to go into action against foreign invaders, including foreign mRNA from a vaccine.
How does that simple removal of one letter of code from mRNA achieve that? It does so by affecting Toll Like Receptors (TLR): the alarm signal of the Innate Immune System.
The key TLRs affected are TLR 3, TLR 7 and TLR 8. They act as sentries, whose job is to recognise foreign invaders by way of their form or patterns;
...
Dominguez-Andres et al addressed that question May 6th 2021. They state: ...
...
BNT162b2 vaccine also modulated the production of inflammatory cytokines by innate immune cells upon stimulation with both specific (SARS-CoV-2) and non-specific (viral, fungal and bacterial) stimuli. The response of innate immune cells to TLR4 and TLR7/8 ligands was lower after BNT162b2 vaccination.
...
We observed a significant reduction in the production if IFN-α secreted after stimulation with poly I:C and R848 after the administration of the second dose of the vaccine (Figure 1H, 1I). This may hamper the initial innate immune response against the virus, as defects in TLR7 have been shown to result in and increased susceptibility to COVID-19 in young males (Van Der Made et al., 2020). These results collectively demonstrate that the effects of the BNT162b2 vaccine go beyond the adaptive immune system and can also modulate innate immune responses.
Three concerns are raised by the above.
- The ability of the immune system to fight viruses has been diminished; specifically, the ability to fight SARS-CoV-2 may be affected;
- Vaccine-induced innate immune tolerance may affect other vaccines; and finally
- What other parts of the immune system may be affected.
...
Dr Ryan Cole, a Pathologist, in a recent presentation, stated that he is observing a 20 x uptick in endometrial cancer, and increases in other cancers post SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.
...
The toll-like receptors 7 & 8 are described in the literature as important in eliciting the vital CD8 T cell response. With that in mind, let us remind ourselves what Drs. Weissman and Kariko wrote in 2005 in Suppression of RNA recognition by Toll-like receptors: the impact of nucleoside modification and the evolutionary origin of RNA:
We show that RNA signals through human TLR3, TLR7, and TLR8, but incorporation of modified nucleosides m5C, m6A, m5U, s2U, or pseudouridine ablates activity.
That very technology is being used in SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: It switches off TLR 7 & 8 signalling, that the immune system needs to fight infection and cancer.
Summary
Changes to key parts of the mRNA code in SARS-CoV-2 vaccines may be causal in changing the innate immune response via toll-like receptors. Toll-like receptors are important components in defence against infection and downstream effects may also include inhibition of CD8 T cell response. CD8 is a vital part of the immune system’s ability to eradicate infection and cancer. Those changes may be reflected in recent reactivated Varicella Zoster infections although specific mechanisms are unclear at the moment. Anecdotal reports of significant uptick in cancer presenting to medical consultants may be consistent with aberrant toll-like receptor and dendritic cell changes leading to an inhibition of the anti-cancer CD8 effector response. Further data are required but the prospect of an altered CD8 response to infection and cancer is very concerning and should prompt urgent investigation.
...
.
Smokers Hospitalized Less Often for COVID-19 By Carolyn CristThe hypothesis comes from Konstantinos Farsalinos, a cardiologist in Greece who focuses on tobacco-use reduction. Farsalinos noticed that few COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized in China were smokers, though about half of men in the country smoke.
Farsalinos and colleagues wrote a new paper available as a preprint and scheduled to be published in Internal and Emergency Medicine. They found that among 13 studies in China with nearly 6,000 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the rate of smokers ranged from 1.4% to 12.6%. No studies recorded e-cigarette use.
“The results were remarkably consistent across all studies and were recently verified in the first case series of COVID-19 cases in the U.S.,” the authors wrote, calling for an “urgent investigation.”
Of course, Farsalinos doesn't recommend that people should begin smoking simply to attempt to avoid a severe case of COVID-19.
.
| PROS1 | |
|---|---|
| * | PROMOTES ANTI-THROMBOTIC STATE |
| * | AIDS IN SUPPRESSION OF COAGULATION |
| * | ACTIVATES TAM (RTK) DOWNREGULATING IMMUNE FUNCTION |
| * | SUPPRESSES INNATE IMMUNE FUNCTION |
| * | PREVENTS CYTOKINE STORM |
| * | IS SYNTHESIZED IN ENDOTHELIAL CELLS ALONGSIDE ACE2 |
| SARS-CoV-2 | |
|---|---|
| 1. | BINDS TO ACE2 PRODUCED IN ENDOTHELIUM, PENETRATES INTO ENDOTHELIAL CELLS |
| 2. | DESTROYS ENDOTHELIUM REDUCING PRODUCTION OF PROS1 THERE |
| 3. | REDUCTION OF PROS1 PROMOTES BOTH CLOTTING AND CYTOKINE STORM (RUNAWY IMMUNE RESPONSE) |
... It is concluded that ACE2+ endothelial damage is a central part of SARS-CoV2 pathology and may be induced by the spike protein alone.
We have made a big mistake by incoculating people with the toxic spike-protein"
To the Editor - For certain diseases, patients who have been previously infected by one strain of a virus and who are later infected by another strain can suffer outcomes that are worse than those infected only once. One explanation for this phenomenon is that differences between two viral serotypes can compromise the ability of antibodies induced by the first infection to neutralize the second one; instead, the antibodies elicited by the first infection ‘bridge’ the second viral strain to immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody constant region (Fc) receptors on immune cells, such as macrophages. Because this bridging is believed to enable viral entry into immune cells, shifting the tropism of the virus1, the outcome manifests as an antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of infection and a potentially more serious recurrence of disease. This phenomenon is often observed when antibody concentrations decrease as a result of waning immunity; an antibody may neutralize potently at high concentrations but cause enhancement of infection at sub-neutralizing concentrations.More reference papers:
.
COVID-19: Montreal Heart Institute concludes colchicine tablet is effectivePatients involved needed to be over the age of 40 and have at least one risk factor for possible complications. The results showed the medication helped reduce hospitalizations by a quarter, the need for mechanical ventilation by half and deaths by 44 per cent.
SARS-CoV-2 has some unexplained pathogenic features that might be related to the table of putative pathogenic priming peptides. Exposure to these specific peptides - via either infection or vaccination - might prime patients for increased risk of enhanced pathogenicity during future exposure due either to future pandemic or outbreaks or via universal vaccination programs. While the mechanisms pathogenesis of COVID-19 are still poorly understood, the morbidity and mortality of SARS has been extensively studied. Thus, the involvement of pathogenic priming in re-infection by COVID-19 is a theoretical possibility; of course no vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 has yet been tested in animals and therefore we do not yet know if pathogenic priming is in fact expected. Such studies should be undertaken before use of any vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 is used in humans.
"In English this says, the Covid 19 virus has only one sequence that does not have links to human proteins. Thus any part of the virus used in a vaccine could potentially make the vaccine fatal to the humans injected with it."
The immunity you get from the actual disease is much more enduring, robust, durable and broader spectrum than the immunity you get from vaccines. So there is more protection with immunity derived from the actual disease. There are two types of antibodies produced in an immune response: neutralizing antibodies and binding antibodies. The danger with Coronavirus vaccines is a phenomenon called 'pathogenic priming'.
Neutralizing antibodies are good. Binding antibodies however, are produced when you try to vaccinate against a Coronavirus. These binding antibodies act like Velcro on your cells' receptors. So the virus sticks to the cells and makes you much more sick.
If you get exposed to Coronavirus through the vaccine, it actually 'primes' your system. So you get much sicker the next time the virus comes around. For example, in the 1960's a MERS (Coronavirus) vaccine was tested on children. But when they were actually challenged by disease itself, they all became horrendously sick and two of them died.
In 2014 Sanofi worked with the NIH to develop a Dengue vaccine. And they saw some of those same pathogenic priming signals during the clinical trials. But ignored them. They gave that vaccine to hundreds of thousands of kids in the Philippines and they all got an immune response. But when the Dengue came back around, the kids who were vaccinated were devastated and 600 of them died. There are criminal charges right now in the Philippines trying public health officials, who were involved in that decision.
Additionally, vaccine manufacturers are free from liability. So they can't be sued, even if things go dreadfully wrong. And there is no adequate safety testing done. Because it's costly and manufacturers don't do it, bcz they are not required to. This 'pathogenic priming' effect is the single most important and dangerous issue when it comes to a Coronavirus vaccine. As no one knows how devastating it can turn out to be.
Abstract
Objective: To describe outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the outpatient setting after early treatment with zinc, low dose hydroxychloroquine, and azithromycin (the triple therapy) dependent on risk stratification. Design: Retrospective case series study. Setting: General practice. Participants: 141 COVID-19 patients with laboratory confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in the year 2020. Main Outcome Measures: Risk-stratified treatment decision, rate of hospitalization and all-cause death. Results: Of 335 positively PCR-tested COVID-19 patients, 127 were treated with the triple therapy. 104 of 127 met the defined risk stratification criteria and were included in the analysis. In addition, 37 treated and eligible patients who were confirmed by IgG tests were included in the treatment group (total N=141). 208 of the 335 patients did not meet the risk stratification criteria and were not treated. After 4 days (median, IQR 3-6, available for N=66/141) of onset of symptoms, 141 patients (median age 58 years, IQR 40-60; 73% male) got a prescription for the triple therapy for 5 days. Independent public reference data from 377 confirmed COVID-19 patients of the same community were used as untreated control. 4 of 141 treated patients (2.8%) were hospitalized, which was significantly less (p less than 0.001) compared with 58 of 377 untreated patients (15.4%) (odds ratio 0.16, 95% CI 0.06-0.5). Therefore, the odds of hospitalization of treated patients were 84% less than in the untreated group. One patient (0.7%) died in the treatment group versus 13 patients (3.5%) in the untreated group (odds ratio 0.2, 95% CI 0.03-1.5; p=0.16). There were no cardiac side effects. Conclusions: Risk stratification-based treatment of COVID-19 outpatients as early as possible after symptom onset with the used triple therapy, including the combination of zinc with low dose hydroxychloroquine, was associated with significantly less hospitalizations and 5 times less all-cause deaths.
(CNN)A surprising new study found the controversial antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine helped patients better survive in the hospital. But the findings, like the federal government's use of the drug itself, were disputed.
A team at Henry Ford Health System in southeast Michigan said Thursday their study of 2,541 hospitalized patients found that those given hydroxychloroquine were much less likely to die.
Dr. Marcus Zervos, division head of infectious disease for Henry Ford Health System, said 26% of those not given hydroxychloroquine died, compared to 13% of those who got the drug. The team looked back at everyone treated in the hospital system since the first patient in March.
"Overall crude mortality rates were 18.1% in the entire cohort, 13.5% in the hydroxychloroquine alone group, 20.1% among those receiving hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, 22.4% among the azithromycin alone group, and 26.4% for neither drug," the team wrote in a report published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases.
...
It's a surprising finding because several other studies have found no benefit from hydroxychloroquine, a drug originally developed to treat and prevent malaria. President Donald Trump touted the drug heavily, but later studies found not only did patients not do better if they got the drug, they were more likely to suffer cardiac side effects....
...Treatment with HCQ-AZ was associated with a decreased risk of transfer to ICU or death (Hazard ratio (HR) 0.18 0.11–0.27), decreased risk of hospitalization ≥10 days (odds ratios 95% CI 0.38 0.27–0.54) and shorter duration of viral shedding (time to negative PCR: HR 1.29 1.17–1.42). QTc prolongation (greater than 60 ms) was observed in 25 patients (0.67%) leading to the cessation of treatment in 12 cases including 3 cases with QTc greater than 500 ms. No cases of torsade de pointe or sudden death were observed.
Conclusion
Although this is a retrospective analysis, results suggest that early diagnosis, early isolation and early treatment of COVID-19 patients, with at least 3 days of HCQ-AZ lead to a significantly better clinical outcome and a faster viral load reduction than other treatments.
Studies Designed To Fail
As Doctor Jim Meehan conjectures, these studies are designed to fail. He believes this is being done to contrive a message to manipulate, mislead and deceive the masses, and that public health is being subverted by commercial bias and political agendas. ...
And these excessive doses are not only making it impossible to assess the therapeutic benefits of HCQ for COVID-19 patients accurately. They are clearly hastening the deaths of many in the study who have been unaccountably administered dangerous amounts of a highly effective drug with a 70-year record of safety and efficacy. A highly salient point made by Del Bigtree of ICAN is that well over 5 million doses of hydroxychloroquine were taken in the United States in 2107 [2017?] for the treatment of lupus, arthritis, and malaria. If the FDA is so concerned about adverse effects associated with HCQ, why wait until now to revoke its use when it was used so widely and so effectively just a few years ago? ...
Small early terminated late stage (60% on oxygen) RCT in France showing 46% lower mortality. mortality at 28 days relative risk RR 0.54 [0.21-1.42] combined mortality/intubation at 28 days relative risk RR 0.74 [0.33-1.70]
Labels:
antiparasitic
,
antiviral
,
covid19
,
HCQ
,
hydroxychloroquine
,
medical-conspiracy
...
The Nigerian dead in Sweden
I was aware of such a case with the same puzzling symptoms, which had been described in 2014 by Swedish pneumologists in a young patient from Nigeria who had died of the disease. At that time, an enzyme deficiency was suspected and actually found to be a possible cause after death, which occurs in many regions of Africa in 20 - 30% of the population.
It is the so-called glucose-6-dehydrogenase deficiency, or "G6PD deficiency", one of the most common genetic peculiarities, which can lead to threatening haemolysis (dissolution of red blood cells), mainly in men, when certain drugs or chemicals are taken. The following map shows the distribution of this deficiency (Source and explanations here).
[pic]
This hereditary trait is particularly common among ethnic groups living in areas with malaria. The modified G6PD gene offers advantages in the tropics. It makes its carriers resistant to malaria pathogens. However, G6PD deficiency is also dangerous if those affected come into contact with certain substances found in, for example, field beans, currants, peas and a number of medicines.
These include acetylsalicylic acid, metamizole, sulfonamides, vitamin K, naphthalene, aniline, malaria drugs and nitrofurans. The G6PD deficiency then leads to a disruption of the biochemical processes in the red blood cells and – depending on the dose – to mild to life-threatening haemolysis. The debris of the burst erythrocytes subsequently leads to microemboli, which block small vessels throughout the organs. What had caused the illness and death of the young man from Nigeria remained unclear at the time.
An alarming discovery
I looked at the drugs that can cause severe hemolysis in G6PD deficiency and got really scared. One of the substances that is called very dangerous in all forms of this enzyme deficiency is the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ).
But this is precisely the substance that Chinese researchers in Wuhan have been recommending against SARS since 2003. Along with the virus from Wuhan, HCQ now came back to us as one of the therapeutic options and was accepted as such. At the same time, HCQ was recommended as a promising agent against Covid-19 for further clinical trials with the support of WHO and other agencies.
According to reports, production of this drug is to be increased in Cameroon, Nigeria and other African countries. India is the largest producer of HCQ and exports it to 55 countries. Werner Baumann, Chairman of the Board of Management of Bayer AG, announced at the beginning of April that "various investigations in laboratories and clinics" had provided first indications that chloroquine might be suitable for the treatment of corona patients. The company then provided several million tablets.
There are now hundreds of trials worldwide, planned or ongoing by different sponsors, in which HCQ is used alone or together with other drugs. When I looked at some large studies to see if patients with G6PD deficiency were excluded, I found no evidence of this in most study plans. In the USA, for example, a large multi-center study with 4,000 volunteers from healthy medical staff is being prepared. Here, however, the term "hypersensitivity" is only used in general terms, as is the case with all drugs with regard to allergic reactions. In a chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine study by Oxford University (NCT04303507) with a planned 40,000 participants, the risk of G6PD deficiency is also not mentioned. In another large study by the Pentagon, though, there is an explicit warning to exclude G6PD deficiency patients from the study.
The following graph, based on information from the WHO database, shows how many studies on Covid-19 and HCQ have been initiated – and how few of them take enzyme deficiency into account.
[pic]
Mostly only the cardiac complications of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine are mentioned, which in Brazil led to the premature termination of a study with 11 deaths of 81 subjects. However, it seems that worldwide little attention is paid to this further serious side effect. In addition, due to the lack of alternatives, HCQ has been tolerated and massively applied in many countries since the beginning of the year as part of a so-called "compassionate use". In medicine, compassionate use refers to the use of not yet approved drugs in emergency situations.
Conspicuous clusters
During this research, more and more results of more precise evaluations of the deaths in especially affected cities were received. In New York and other cities in the USA, it was reported that the vast majority of fatalities were African Americans – twice as many as could be expected based on the proportion of the population.
Also from England, where the mortality data from Euromomo shows an increasing death rate since the beginning of April, it was reported that 35% of about 2000 seriously ill people, twice as many as expected, came from ethnic "minorities" ("black, Asian or other ethnic minority"), including doctors and medical staff.
A major doctor's death in Italy remains in urgent need of clarification. The death of about 150 doctors and only a few female doctors is associated with Covid-19. Although age may have played a role in many of these cases, it should be noted that a high prevalence of G6PD deficiency has also been described for some regions of Italy and that in Italy up to 71% of those who tested positive with PCR, as well as the staff, had a prophylactic high level of HCQ. The same applies to Spain. Among the first 15 Covid-19 deaths in Sweden, there were 6 younger migrants from Somalia.
Deadly combination
Therefore the frightening result of my research is that typical severe courses with haemolysis, microthrombi and shortness of breath without typical signs of pneumonia occur more frequently where two factors come together:
Many patients with ancestors from malaria countries with G6PD deficiency
Prophylactic or therapeutic use of high-dose HCQ
This is exactly what is to be expected in Africa, and this is already the case everywhere where migration is causing a large proportion of the population coming from malaria countries. The following diagram shows the process flow schematically.
[pic]
Cities such as New York, Chicago, New Orleans, London, or even large cities in Holland, Belgium, Spain and France are such centers. If the test is widely used in these migration hotspots and is expected to be positive in about 10 to 20% of the population, many people from the G6PD countries will also be among them. If they are then treated with high-dose HCQ, either prophylactically or as part of a "compassionate" use, as planned, then those severe clinical pictures will also be evoked in young people, as has been presented to us by the sensational press, and which keep our fear of Covid-19 alive.
It is unknown how many times this deadly combination has already led to victims. There has been no discussion of the issue among those responsible in the WHO and in governments. There is also a frightening lack of knowledge and sense of responsibility among doctors who are accountable for the treatment of Covid-19 patients or for the staff treating them.
Once again: This connection applies not only to Africa, but also to large parts of Asia, South and Central America, Arabia and the Mediterranean region.
However, the cases mentioned have nothing to do with Covid-19 disease. A PCR test result leading to the prophylactic prescription of HCQ is sufficient to cause severe disease in up to one third of the people from high-risk populations treated in this way.
HCQ treatment for G6PD deficiency is a dangerous malpractice
This could be remedied immediately if all treating physicians worldwide were informed about the contraindication of HCQ. However, the WHO, the CDC, the ECDC, the Chinese SARS specialists, the medical associations, the drug authorities and the German government and its advisors are carelessly neglecting to inform the public. In view of the ongoing programmes, this appears to be gross negligence.
It is a malpractice to treat people with G6PD deficiency with high-dose chloroquine derivatives or other drugs known to be dangerous for them. Under the WHO label "'Solidarity' clinical trial for COVID-19 treatments", healthy people are exposed in a hurry to authorised, life-threatening experiments. Hundreds of clinical trials, mostly worthless observational studies with parallel approaches, very often also run with HCQ as one of the alternatives.
German drug legislation prohibits the use of unauthorised drugs, but the government still encourages this. A non-validated test that is not approved for diagnostic purposes provides the pretext for the use of life-threatening medication – given an infectious disease where there is still no evidence that it poses serious risks beyond the risk of the annual flu epidemic.
At full throttle into the catastrophe
The dangers of this epidemic are presented with the help of scientific imposture. An unsuitable test from Berlin provides the pretext for deadly measures all over the world. The consequences of these mistakes lead to emergencies in many regions, which are attributed to an epidemic. This creates precisely the wave of fear so many in business and politics are now riding and which threatens to bury our fundamental rights.
The public, the media and the medical community hardly seem to be surprised that in New York and other centres more than twice as many "African Americans" die as would be expected due to their population share. Even in the studies of deaths in the USA and elsewhere, the risk posed by G6PD deficiency is almost always ignored or forgotten.
When sought-after virologists and other experts have been announcing for a long time that there will be a wave of deaths and terrible conditions in the cities in Africa, do they know about these connections? Or are there other provable reasons that justify such momentous prophecies? Finally: Is all this just a matter for science or also for public prosecutors and courts?
Note from the editor: Further information and graphics can be found on the author's website.
About the author: Dr. med. Wolfgang Wodarg, born in 1947, is an internist and pulmonary physician, specialist for hygiene and environmental medicine as well as for public health and social medicine. After his clinical activity as an internist, he was, among other things, a public health officer in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany for 13 years, at the same time lecturer at universities and technical colleges and chairman of the expert committee for health-related environmental protection at the Schleswig-Holstein Medical Association; in 1991 he received a scholarship at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA (epidemiology).
As a member of the German Federal Parliament from 1994 to 2009, he was initiator and speaker in the Enquête Commission "Ethics and Law of Modern Medicine", member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, where he was chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and deputy chairman of the Committee on Culture, Education and Science. In 2009, he initiated the Committee of Inquiry into WHO's role in H1N1 (swine flu) in Strasbourg, where he remained as a scientific expert after leaving Parliament. Since 2011 he has been working as a freelance university lecturer, doctor and health scientist and was a volunteer member of the board and head of the health working group at Transparency International Germany until 2020.
Labels:
antiparasitic
,
antiviral
,
covid19
,
G6PD
,
HCQ
,
hydroxychloroquine
,
malaria
,
medicine
