-
Re: Coronavirus
Dachsie Comment:
Replying to my number 2507 posting in this thread about ivermectin study published in the British Journal of Medicine.
I expressed my doubts about this study and was hoping someone who had the expertise to elaborate about the study would write something about that.
Well, here it is.
_____________________
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/d...a-059557cc3a5e
03/31/22
•
NY Times Latest to Mislead Public on New Ivermectin Study
The New York Times on Wednesday sent an email to subscribers titled: “Breaking News: Ivermectin failed as a Covid treatment . . .” The Times was referring to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine, covered March 18 by The Wall Street Journal. In both cases, the newspapers failed to provide an accurate critical analysis of the study.
By
Madhava Setty, M.D.
Madhava Setty, M.D. is senior science editor for The Defender.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/w...re-800x417.jpg
Excerpts from the article.
The New York Times on Wednesday sent an email blast to subscribers with the subject line: “Breaking News: Ivermectin failed as a Covid treatment, a large clinical trial found.”
The Times was referring to a study I wrote about, that same day, for The Defender.
My article called out the Wall Street Journal for its March 18 reporting on the same study — before the study was even published — for its failure to provide an accurate, critical assessment of the study.
The study in question — “Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19” — was officially published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).
In it the authors concluded:
“Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19”
The Times did not critique the study itself, but quoted the opinion of Dr. David Boulware, an infectious-disease expert at the University of Minnesota:
“There’s really no sign of any benefit. Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin towards other therapies.”
Yes. Let us dive into the details and the data and see where it “steers” us, shall we?
A closer look at the details SNIP
...
More questions than answers
Rather than pounding the final nail in the coffin around ivermectin’s utility in treating COVID, the NEJM study raises more questions.
What would the effect have been if a higher dose shown to be effective were administered?
What would be the benefit of this medicine in patients with no risk factors?
How statistically significant would the results have been if more participants were enrolled?
Why weren’t more participants enrolled as the study progressed given the emerging benefit of the drug and the absence of adverse events?
Why did the investigators define a primary outcome with such different real-world implications (ER visits vs hospitalizations)?
With less than 50% of the placebo arm adhering to the study protocol, why were their outcomes included in the analysis?
What effect did vaccination status have on outcome? If this is the primary means endorsed to prevent hospitalization, why wasn’t vaccination status mentioned as a confounder?
Did the investigators choose to limit the study as it became clear that an Ivermectin benefit would be too big to ignore?
Given these obvious issues with the study, it is becoming even more clear where the real story is: Neither The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times are willing to pursue startling details around how corporate interests are corrupting scientific opinion as reported here.
Instead, these iconic journals chose to report on a scientific study on or prior to the day of publication using misleading headlines backed up by flimsy investigations conducted by journalists with no capacity to dissect the analysis or data.
Here’s a bigger question: Are they just incompetent, or complicit, too?
-
Re: Coronavirus
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/d...a-059557cc3a5e
Excerpts
03/29/22
•
COVID › News
Heart Damage Found in Teens Months After Second Pfizer Shot, Study Shows
A new peer-reviewed study shows more than two-thirds of adolescents with COVID-19 vaccine-related myopericarditis had persistent heart abnormalities months after their initial diagnosis, raising concerns for potential long-term effects and contradicting claims by health officials that the condition is “mild.”
By
Megan Redshaw
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/w...re-800x417.jpg
A new peer-reviewed study shows more than two-thirds of adolescents with COVID-19 vaccine-related myopericarditis had persistent heart abnormalities months after their initial diagnosis, raising concerns for potential long-term effects.
The findings, published March 25 in the Journal of Pediatrics, challenge the position of U.S. health agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which claim heart inflammation associated with the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines is “mild.” SNIP
...
https://twitter.com/MartyMakary/stat...pfizer-shot%2F
Marty Makary MD, MPH
@MartyMakary
CDC has a civic duty to do rigorously study the long-term effects of vaccine-induced myocarditis. New follow-up study 3-8 months after myocarditis shows the MRI heart abnormality of late gadolinium enhancement seen in 63% of children. Merits further study.
https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/15088...jpg&name=small
No such thing as ‘mild’ heart damage
A paper published Jan. 14 in Circulation summarized the clinical course of 139 young patients between the ages of 12 and 20 who were hospitalized for myocarditis following COVID vaccination.
Of those patients, 19% were taken into intensive care, two required infusions of potent intravenous drugs used to raise critically low blood pressure and every patient had an elevated troponin level.
Troponin is an enzyme specific to cardiac myocytes. Levels above 0.4 ng/ml are strongly suggestive of heart damage.
The paper concluded, “Most cases of suspected COVID-19 vaccine myocarditis occurring in persons <21 years have a mild clinical course with rapid resolution of symptoms.”
“We suppose [a ‘mild clinical course] refers to the 81% who did not go to the ICU or the fact that none died or required ECMO (Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation, a desperate means to keep the body oxygenated when a patient’s heart or lungs have completely failed),” wrote Setty and Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D., a theoretical physicist, in an article critiquing the Circulation paper.
“When does a ‘mild clinical course’ require hospitalization for a two-day median length of stay?” they asked. “How does anyone know if symptoms rapidly resolve?”
“We don’t know what it will do to young boys in the long term, especially since every patient had some damage to their heart as evidenced by significantly abnormal troponin levels,” Setty and Mitteldorf wrote. “And we don’t fully understand the mechanism by which the vaccines cause myocarditis.”
-
Re: Coronavirus
Here is another response to the British Medical Journal study that concluded that ivermectin does not work, this one by Steve Kirsch email. (Dr. Pierre Kory will have another strong response in support of ivermectin effectiveness very soon in his Substack account.)
Dachsie just had the immediate impression that this BMJ study was deliberately crafted for the intention of producing a specific negative conclusion against ivermectin. We already know who probably did the crafting and who probably paid for the study and for what motivations. It is valuable to expose everything possible about this study. "THEY" have been doing these kinds of "peer-reviewed scientific studies (stories)" for decades and it is why so many young idealistic medical students and doctors become somewhat cynical and jaded early on in their noble profession that is meant to serve medical science and human health and wellbeing.
Excerpts
_________
Whoops! The TOGETHER Trial actually showed that ivermectin worked.
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/d...Z1SN4BZ_aA&s=r
Even the author admitted it. The media and medical establishment did not read the study carefully. They seize on anything that supports the narrative and fail to look at the study critically.
Steve Kirsch
Apr 4
Comment
Share
__________________________
https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...Z15MXvcOlQ--~D
I just got off the phone with Pierre Kory. He just got back into the country and on Monday, April 4, he will be writing an article on his Substack on the ivermectin arm of the Together Trial. Let’s just say Pierre is not a happy camper. I haven’t seen him this upset ever.
In the meantime, here’s my take on this.
Ivermectin works and this study didn’t prove otherwise
The most important thing is this: The evidence, including this study, consistently shows that ivermectin works against COVID. In one group, as I will explain below (and I’m sure Pierre will explain in more detail), there was a 50% reduction in hospitalization. That’s big.
However, the media (including Alex Berenson) don’t want to look like they were wrong so they simply misinterpret the study results and hope you won’t read the study yourself. SNIP
...
That’s a quick summary of the learnings. The same learnings are true with other drugs like fluvoxamine. However, the medical community is very slow to learn these lessons that timing, dosing, etc. matter. For example, David Wiseman found that HCQ actually worked and it was statistically significant if you analyzed the data correctly and took into account the FedEx shipping delay. Wiseman tried to get his results published, but the journals didn’t want to upset the narrative and rejected his work. I’ve known David since the start of the pandemic and I can tell you he is meticulous. I’ve seen top scientists duck and run for cover when Wiseman asks to see their data.
The key points are:
Be careful not to generalize the result of a trial. A given trial means that drug X given with a delay Y and at a dose Z and duration A and…. is not statistically significant if there are only B people in the trial. Changing one or more of these variables can turn a “not statistically significant result” into something that is statistically significant with a big effect size. The press should never say, “HCQ doesn’t work for COVID.” They should say, “If you give HCQ at dose X for duration Y on Z hospitalized patients, there was not a statistically significant effect.” When you give it early in the appropriate dose and duration and in combination with other drugs, it works great as George Fareed and Bryan Tyson (among many others) will attest to.
Timing, dosing, duration, and combination of drugs all matter. Timing is the most important thing. If you delay for too long, a miracle drug can turn into a dud.
The study also PROVED that the NEJM, mainstream medical community, and the press are incapable of objectively interpreting the results of a study.
It’s important you all know that.
In today’s world, evaluation of studies is driven by agreement with the mainstream narrative, not by a critical look at what the study actually shows. If it agrees with the narrative, the study doesn’t have to be evaluated for flaws.
That is not how science is supposed to work.
Here is what study senior author Ed Mills wrote in a private email to Marc Rendell (used with Ed’s permission) SNIP
...
For further reading
A great analysis of the trial from Phil Harper:
The Digger
The Can't Add TOGETHER Trial
If a study has a press release strategy, it’s fair to assume that its motivations are more aligned with good press rather than good science. On March 18th, the world was treated to another negative headline: “Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date”. It wasn’t possible for the journalist to interrogate that claim, because the study hadn’t been published. Nonetheless, the headline was dutifully…
Read more
3 days ago · 25 likes · 21 comments · Phil Harper
Here is another article on the study from another one of my friends:
In G-d’s Army There’s Only Truth
THE ANATOMY OF A VERY, VERY BIG LIE
BS"D Many have questions about the old-but-newly-published TOGETHER trial that just came out in the New England Journal of Medicine and is making gleeful headlines in mainstream media, telling one and all "Ivermectin doesn't work." https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.105...ed_home…
Read more
3 days ago · 2 likes · 1 comment · Brucha Weisberger
Pierre’s article should be out shortly. Look for it on his Substack. SNIP
...
My personal feelings about Ed Mills and Pierre Kory
I’ve known Ed since 2020. He’s always been extremely nice to me and has never ducked any questions.
When he started the ivermectin trial, he told me he was skeptical that it worked, but he was willing to go with what the data shows. What’s clear from his email is that at the end, he was convinced it was effective. That’s significant. A dishonest scientist wouldn’t say that.
I’ve known Pierre for about the same amount of time as Ed and I have great respect for him as a man of high integrity and enormous courage to challenge the mainstream narrative. He’s amazing.
So I have a lot of respect for both Ed and Pierre and I’m friends with both.
I encouraged Pierre to call Ed on the phone to talk about his objections and see if they could be resolved. That didn’t happen and that’s unfortunate. I’m sure Ed would have happily taken the call.
We are all in this together and it’s important that we work together to resolve differences of opinion. I am continuing to encourage Pierre to give Ed a call and have a friendly discussion.
Not meeting to resolve differences of opinion is unproductive
In all cases to date, the blue-pill “experts” in the vaccine have steadfastly refused to engage with any of us to resolve our differences. We have reached out countless times, even with offers to “name your price,” to have our questions answered, but to no avail. Nobody wants to explain to us how we got it wrong. Not even for a million dollars. This is astonishing.
We made the same offer to people who claim that masks protect people from getting or spreading SARS-CoV-2. Everyone we contacted refused to defend their position except for just one person: Yale economics Professor Jason Abaluck. Professor Abaluck was the senior author of the Bangladesh mask study. He said he would engage us, but restricted our sessions to one person at a time. We had our first discussion (2 hour recorded zoom call) on April 3, 2022. I’ll be writing a Substack on this tomorrow when the recording is released.
The important lesson is this: when people do agree to come together, differences get resolved. When people refuse to meet to resolve their differences, the differences don’t get resolved. Such a novel concept!
Hence, it is completely unproductive for people who are pro-vaccine to continue to stonewall answering our questions. If they have nothing to hide, why aren’t they willing to meet with us?
What do you think?
Subscribe to Steve Kirsch's newsletter
Thousands of paid subscribers
I write about COVID vaccine safety and efficacy, corruption, censorship, mandates, masking, and early treatments. America is being misled by formerly trusted authorities.
-
Re: Coronavirus
Somewhere along the way I saw a graph where a country adopted Ivermectin as a therapy ( I believe it was Japan). The graph just plunged to nothing after the adoption.
-
Re: Coronavirus
https://x22report.com/ds-system-expo...route-ep-2742/
Thomas Massie
@RepThomasMassie
We have filed a lawsuit in federal court against this woman to end the mask mandate on airplanes.
Perhaps someone should sue her over her lies about vaccines… how many thousands of people were infected because they believed her statement that the vaccinated can’t spread covid?
Kyle Martinsen
@KyleMartinsen_
1 YEAR AGO TODAY
Biden's CDC Director: "Vaccinated people do not carry the virus”
Embedded video
8:42 AM · Apr 3, 2022
11.8K
See the latest COVID-19 information on Twitter
https://pbs.twimg.com/amplify_video_...yqzXn4XSYd.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/amplify_video_...yqzXn4XSYd.jpg
embedded video address is
https://twitter.com/i/status/1509206752780238851
-
Re: Coronavirus
-
Re: Coronavirus
I received one or two emails a day with articles and news items from Steve Kirsch, who is an engineer and successful business entrepreneur. He knows about data and and how to properly analyze it and he knows statistics. He has taken special interest in "COVID" and the "vaccines" and what is "safe and effective" and what treatments save lives.
In this morning's email he told about an arrogant M.D.'s pronouncements that only those with credentials like his own qualifies them to even have an opinion about the prescription medicine, fluvoxamine, sold under the such brand names as Luvox or Fevarin. Mr. Kirsch shows how the studies prove that that drug is safe and effective and saves lives, I believe mainly during early treatment.
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/m...bAMqI7YXec&s=r
Steve Kirsch's Newsletter
Michael Patmas, MD says that only people with CREDENTIALS are qualified to opine on infectious disease issues
Excerpt:
"The IDSA* considers fluvoxamine too speculative to use and says it should only be used in the context of a clinical trial. Wow. 12X mortality reduction in a pandemic and we should do even more clinical trials? They basically don’t care about human life at all. All they care about is not making a mistake. There is no risk-benefit calculation here. They put a zero value on human life. They are only concerned about their reputation. They don’t want to be “wrong.”"
* Infectious Diseases Society of America
-
Re: Coronavirus
just something I came across in my wonderings and wanderings...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WdFxe-xMdY&t=112s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WdFxe-xMdY&t=112s
30 second video clip
Subject: natural immunity, Pfizer scientists, James O'Keefe, First Amendment
-
Re: Coronavirus
https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...4JZF_sKwrQ--~D
FAITHFUL FREEDOM WITH TERYN GREGSON
MARCH 2022 MONTH IN REVIEW
Here is a recap of last month's episodes, in case you missed any of them. And don't forget to tune in every Wednesday as Teryn interviews some of the biggest names in the fight for freedom, along with everyday Americans who are pushing back against tyranny in all of its forms!
https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...BPG7iUVTHA--~D
https://rumble.com/vw77ox-dr.-pierre...hs-and-mo.html
Dr. Pierre Kory - Ep. 14
Dr. Pierre Kory does not hold back in this week's episode of Faithful Freedom with Teryn Gregson, diving into how and why hospitals are not properly treating patients for COVID, how patients' vaccine status being labeled 'unknown' is manipulating the data, why many doctors only perform treatments supported by certain clinical trials usually conducted by Big Pharma, and so much more.
_____
https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...QO8sxuo8IQ--~D
https://rumble.com/vxhonv-a-curious-rise-in-neurodegenerative-diseases-and-detoxing-from-the-vax-dr.-.html
Dr. Stephanie Seneff - Ep. 16
MIT Senior Research Scientist Dr. Stephanie Seneff joins "Faithful Freedom with Teryn Gregson" to explain why we may being seeing a rise in neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson's & Alzheimer's this year, how you can detox naturally after the COVID shot, and warnings for our kids.
_____
https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...q0sRJX2S2g--~D
https://rumble.com/vy1fp1-emerald-ro...ative-ep..html
Emerald Robinson - Ep. 17
In what should be one of the biggest stories of the year, Former White House Chief Correspondent and host of “The Absolute Truth with Emerald Robinson” joins "Faithful Freedom with Teryn Gregson" to discuss the state of media and the FOIA request that revealed a government-funded propaganda campaign around the COVID vaccine that the likes of FOX News, Newsmax, NBC, and others accepted on YOUR tax dollars.
_____
https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...imVMxoKUaQ--~D
https://rumble.com/vypz3e-28-year-ol...ina-herme.html
Katrina Hermez - Ep. 18
28-year-old English woman Katrina Hermez joins "Faithful Freedom with Teryn Gregson" to share her life after the Pfizer COVID-19 jab, one that includes seizures, paralysis, brain fog and more. Few doctors in the UK will treat her. Hear her tragic story and join We The Patriots USA as we help fight against the mandates.
_____
► Subscribe to the podcast newsletter: https://teryngregson.com/podcast
-
Re: Coronavirus
Dachsie heard about this on this video
https://x22report.com/aiovg_videos/e...-the-patriots/
at about 29:40 on the video track.
Dave of x22report seemed to have stated that it was COVID deaths in the hospital that generated the grant for the hospital from the federal government, but technically death did not have to be the outcome of the hospitalization, but as Dachsie sees this data, technically only the diagnosis of "COVID" had to appear in the medical record, along with the listing of the other diagnoses. In fact, this deceptive action by the hospitals was probably most used on terminal patients in the hospital.
Thought this was very interesting information on how hospitals got in on the COVID money game early-on in the USA Part of the PLANdemic.
I found the original list/chart and it is 2020 data.
There was some kind of deal made with hospitals whereby they could receive a certain amount of federal grant dollars for each hospital's (in subject state) patient with a COVID diagnosis. The hospitals were therefore incentivized to have high numbers of COVID cases so they started counting patients with fatal injuries from car accidents etc., fatal illness such as late stage cancer or heart attacks. They just hurried and got positive PCR tests on these patients who were in guarded terminal condition and the hospital put COVID as one of diagnoses, and causes of death on the death certificate, of that patient in the hospital. This generated much income for hospitals and they went along with it, presumably from some written authorization from a federal government agency that this was permissible. (Dachsie documented this in this thread over a year ago.)
As a reminder, the plotters of the PLANdemic had to have high death numbers attributed to COVID in order to generate the degree of fear and panic in the population to make the overall goals of "the Plandemic" go forward successfully.
_________________
https://www.beckershospitalreview.co...d-19-case.html
State-by-state breakdown of federal aid per COVID-19 case
States' hospitals that received grant per patient over $100,000 are bolded.
Ayla Ellison (Twitter) - Tuesday, April 14th, 2020 Print | Email
Listen
Text
HHS recently began distributing the first $30 billion of emergency funding designated for hospitals in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. Some of the states hit hardest by the COVID-19 pandemic will receive less funding than states touched relatively lightly, according to an analysis by Kaiser Health News.
The first round of grants will be distributed based on historical share Medicare revenue, not based on COVID-19 burden. Therefore, hard-hit states like New York will receive far less per COVID-19 case than most other states.
HHS said it doled out the first slice of funding based on Medicare revenue to get support to hospitals as quickly as possible. The agency said the next round of grants "will focus on providers in areas particularly impacted by the COVID-19 outbreak," rural hospitals and other healthcare providers that receive much of their revenues from Medicaid.
Below is a breakdown of how much funding per COVID-19 case each state will receive from the first $30 billion in aid. Kaiser Health News used a state breakdown provided to the House Ways and Means Committee by HHS along with COVID-19 cases tabulated by The New York Times for its analysis.
Alabama
$158,000 per COVID-19 case
Alaska
$306,000
Arizona
$23,000
Arkansas
$285,000
California
$145,000
Colorado
$58,000
Connecticut
$38,000
Delaware
$127,000
District of Columbia
$56,000
Florida
$132,000
Georgia
$73,000
Hawaii
$301,000
Idaho
$100,000
Illinois
$73,000
Indiana
$105,000
Iowa
$235,000
Kansas
$291,000
Kentucky
$297,000
Louisiana
$26,000
Maine
$260,000
Maryland
$120,000
Massachusetts
$44,000
Michigan
$44,000
Minnesota
$380,000
Mississippi
$166,000
Missouri
$175,000
Montana
$315,000
Nebraska
$379,000
Nevada
$98,000
New Hampshire
$201,000
New Jersey
$18,000
New Mexico
$171,000
New York
$12,000
North Carolina
$252,000
North Dakota
$339,000
Ohio
$180,000
Oklahoma
$291,000
Oregon
$220,000
Pennsylvania
$68,000
Rhode Island
$52,000
South Carolina
$186,000
South Dakota
$241,000
Tennessee
$166,000
Texas
$184,000
Utah
$94,000
Vermont
$87,000
Virginia
$201,000
Washington
$58,000
West Virginia
$471,000
Wisconsin
$163,000
Wyoming
$278,000
Latest articles on finance:
Survivors of shootings spend $2.5B in collective health costs in 1st year after injury, study estimates
7 hospitals laying off workers
Senate negotiators reach $10B COVID-19 aid deal
We think you might be interested in this webinar: Postoperative cardiac care: Strategies to eliminate common complications, save lives and reduce costs which will take place on Wednesday, April 27th, 2022 at 12:00 PM CST - Register Now!
Copyright © 2022 Becker's Healthcare. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Cookie Policy. Linking and Reprinting Policy.
Subscribe to the Becker's Hospital Review newsletter for the latest in healthcare news!
