Conclusion Considering the urgency of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, simultaneous detection of various new mutant strains and future potential re-emergence of novel coronaviruses, repurposing of approved drugs such as Ivermectin could be worthy of attention. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-021-00430-5 What OTHER COMPOUNDS DO THIS TOO? GET CRACKIN' FOUCHER! EARN YOUR PAY! https://www.nature.com/siteindex
German chief pathologist sounds alarm on fatal vaccine injuries The director of the Pathological Institute of the University of Heidelberg, Peter Schirmacher, has carried out over forty autopsies on people who had died within two weeks of their vaccination. Schirmacher expressed alarm over his findings. In his opinion, the frequency of fatal consequences of vaccinations is underestimated – a politically explosive statement in times when the vaccination campaign is losing momentum, the Delta variant is spreading rapidly and restrictions on non-vaccinated people are being discussed.” https://freewestmedia.com/2021/08/0...ogist-sounds-alarm-on-fatal-vaccine-injuries/ quote below is from translated original article in German language-we know how Germans are prone to detail and all In Baden-Württemberg, the pathologists therefore worked with public prosecutors, the police and resident doctors, reports Schirmacher. More than 40 people have already been autopsied who died within two weeks of being vaccinated. Schirmacher assumes that 30 to 40 percent of them died from the vaccination. In his opinion, the frequency of fatal consequences of vaccinations is underestimated - a politically explosive statement in times when the vaccination campaign is losing momentum, the delta variant is spreading rapidly and restrictions on non-vaccinated people are being discussed. The doctor now wants to get to the bottom of rare, serious side effects of vaccination - such as cerebral vein thrombosis or autoimmune diseases. https://www.augsburger-allgemeine.de/panorama/Corona The Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung is a major German regional daily newspaper published since 1945 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augsburger_Allgemeine
Heidelberg University, officially the Ruprecht Karl University of Heidelberg, (German: Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg; Latin: Universitas Ruperto Carola Heidelbergensis) is a public research university in Heidelberg, Baden-Württemberg, Germany. Founded in 1386 on instruction of Pope Urban VI, Heidelberg is Germany's oldest university and one of the world's oldest surviving universities. It was the third university established in the Holy Roman Empire.[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidelberg_University Every 50 year on average there were wars between the French and Germans and this university survived,perhaps they value their reputation and they will also survive Pfizer and Moderna and AZ and enhance our knowledge
South Africa A plea to allow the use of Ivermectin as Covid-19 treatment delivered to Ramaphosa’s house Twenty countries are using Ivermectin to treat Covid-19. They include Mexico, Guatemala, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Portugal, Nigeria, and Egypt. In South Africa doctors are allowed to prescribe Ivermectin, but it is not being rolled out everywhere and in hospitals and clinics. The use of Ivermectin has been restricted because the WHO says that further clinical trials are needed before they can recommend it. When asked about this, Dr Stone replied, “I find it very hard to understand how they can say that there is not sufficient evidence. There are three thousand patients plus in, I think, twenty-four trials where they demonstrate an over 75% reduction in mortality.” https://www.biznews.com/health/2021/07/29/ivermectin-treatment
What complete nonsense. Read the bolded text below to see the facts and reality about the claims a meta analysis of 3000 patients across multiple studies found Ivermectin beneficial in treating COVID. The meta analysis when the largest study included was withdrawn for being completely fraudulent. ============================== Meta-analyses are done by aggregating results from many smaller studies to produce a large study sample with credible statistical power. In this case the researchers combined 15 clinical trials with a total of 2,438 participants. As Gorski and others point out, though, meta-analyses are only as good as their raw material, a phenomenon Gorski labels “garbage in, garbage out.” In this analysis, the quality of the components is poor; many are too small to have useful results, in some cases the subjects are poorly described so that the meta-analysts can’t tell what’s being measured. All the members of the research team are associated with a British pro-ivermectin organization and the money for the research was raised by a GoFundMe campaign headlined “Help us get a life-saving drug approved for COVID-19.” The biggest problem with the meta-analysis concerned one of its key component studies. This was a 600-patient trial conducted by Egyptian researchers in 2020 that found a strong therapeutic effect. As data researchers Nick Brown and Jack Lawrence showed, however, there were glaring problems with that trial, its data and the report itself. To begin with, Lawrence found what he termed “significant levels of plagiarism” in the report. Brown found that the data were a mess, with indications that some of the data were duplicated within the report. The results, he concluded, had “probably been extensively manipulated by hand.” The report was not peer-reviewed before publication, so it probably should never have been incorporated in the meta-analysis at all. At any rate, on July 14, as the Brown and Lawrence reports went online, the preprint server that had published the Egyptian paper withdrew it “due to an expression of concern” that is “now under formal investigation.” Dropping the Egyptian results from the meta-analysis changes the conclusion about ivermectin completely. According to Australian epidemiologist Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, if one removes the Egypt data and re-runs the meta-analysis, “the benefit...largely loses its statistical significance.” In other words, ivermectin has no effect on COVID-19. That wouldn’t be a surprise to the World Health Organization, the Food and Drug Administration or, indeed, Merck, a manufacturer of ivermectin. The drug company says there is “no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies; no meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and; a concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.” To put it another way, the ivermectin craze could threaten your health and the health of the community. https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-07-22/ivermectin-another-bogus-covid-treatment
Jerusalem Post Israeli scientist says COVID-19 could be treated for under $1/day In Schwartz’s study, some 89 eligible volunteers over the age of 18 who were diagnosed with coronavirus and staying in state-run COVID-19 hotels were divided into two groups: 50% received ivermectin, and 50% received a placebo, according to their weight. They were given the pills for three days in a row, an hour before a meal. The volunteers were tested using a standard nasopharyngeal swab PCR test with the goal of evaluating whether there was a reduction in viral load by the sixth day – the third day after termination of the treatment. They were swabbed every two days. Nearly 72% of volunteers treated with ivermectin tested negative for the virus by day six. https://www.jpost.com/health-science/israeli-scientist-says-covid-19-could-be-treated-for-under-1day-675612 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v1
MIT Researchers Admit Anti-Maskers Are More Scientifically Rigorous " . . . one could argue that maskers are only parroting the narrative promoted by the mainstream media and our politicians, while anti-maskers are actually approaching the data critically. MIT Researchers Admit Anti-Maskers Are More Scientifically Rigorous By Annie Holmquist 3 ½ min Upon recounting my bout with COVID to an acquaintance, I was asked if I knew where I might have picked up the virus. When I mentioned my hunch about the source, my acquaintance gasped, then inferred that I and those I caught it from must not have been wearing masks since the virus had spread. “No,” I responded, much to her surprise, “we were wearing masks.” Such a comment demonstrates the great confidence which many have placed in measures such as lockdowns and mask mandates in recent months. “Science confirms that these measures work!” many exclaim, arguing that those who question masks or other allegedly helpful restrictions are anti-science. Yet new research from several MIT academics casts some doubt on the anti-science nature of COVID skeptics. In their paper, “Viral Visualizations: How Coronavirus Skeptics Use Orthodox Data Practices to Promote Unorthodox Science Online,” the academics show some curious cognitive dissonance, making anti-mask proponents out to be clever propagandists who create easily understandable charts and graphs to sway the public away from the authoritative opinions of experts. At the same time the academics admit, almost in a puzzled fashion, that these “anti-maskers” do their investigations in a very scientific manner. “Indeed,” the paper claims, “anti-maskers often reveal themselves to be more sophisticated in their understanding of how scientific knowledge is socially constructed than their ideological adversaries, who espouse naive realism about the ‘objective’ truth of public health data.” The MIT academics go on to admit that those opposed to masks are not afraid to get down and dirty in looking at statistics, nor are they afraid to increasingly question the media and government authorities, a trait MIT researchers call “a weaponization of critical thinking.” Even more surprising is the revelation that anti-maskers’ “approach to the pandemic is grounded in a more scientific rigor, not less.” People can bicker all day long about which side is right on this issue, but in this instance, these straightforward, honest comments from the MIT researchers should give us pause. They are clearly opposed to the ideas of the anti-maskers, yet they can’t help but begrudgingly respect the scientific methods of their opponents. So how do we cut through the obvious politics of this issue and discern between science and propaganda? American philosopher James Burnham offered some insight into this question in his 1941 book, The Managerial Revolution, writing: The aim of propaganda is to persuade people to accept certain ideas or feelings or attitudes. The aim of science is to discover the truth about the world. The propagandistic aim is usually best served by being thoroughly one-sided, by presenting only what is favorable to your case and suppressing all that might weaken it and bolster your opponent. One could say that both the anti-maskers and the MIT researchers are engaging in propaganda, anxious to present only evidence favorable to their side. But in another sense, one could argue that they are only parroting the narrative promoted by the mainstream media and our politicians, while anti-maskers are actually approaching the data critically. Burnham expands upon this thought by noting, “In the case of any hypothesis which is under consideration, science, in contrast to propaganda, is always anxious to present all the evidence, for and against. The scientific aim is just as well served by proving a hypothesis false as by proving it true.” [Emphasis added.] Given these facts, why is it that nearly every media source, politician, and even the average Joe is so eager to squelch “unorthodox” opinions like those explored in this MIT paper? If they refuse to allow their hypotheses to be tested, then they are the ones who are truly anti-science.