It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Corona Virus Updates Part 6

page: 270
118
<< 267  268  269   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2022 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Best path forward for Omicron

So you have some experts re warning against letting the variant run its course? because massive vaccinating has worked so far hasn't it? vaccinated are also getting infected and sick despite vaccination.

Funny part at the end.



Omicron variant of COVID-19 holds a reputation as a ‘mild’ virus variant, experts are warning against letting it run its course.



posted on Jan, 16 2022 @ 10:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: angelchemuel

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: McGinty
a reply to: Soloprotocol

I find it best to just ignore and skip past his posts; probably a shill, or bot of some description - who/what else would link the tptb’s own tannoy of propaganda the bbc as a paragon of truth and fact? It’s farcical!

Will watch the vid tmw - thanks for posting it.


Yeah, 'go mods'. Please ask him why he didn't provide a link for his 'fact check' for the interview....


This one? Hello?


BBC News - Covid: Fact-checking the doctor who challenged the health secretary
www.bbc.co.uk...

I love the comical parts in that BBC article justifying covid vaccination.




While vaccines remain very good at protecting against becoming severely ill with Covid, the protection they give against catching it and passing it on does wane more quickly.

A lie from that article.
vaccinated person with Covid was just 2% less likely than an unvaccinated person
More Lies.




But the same study found the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which NHS staff are likely to have had, endured better. Vaccinated people had a 25% lower risk of infecting others than unvaccinated people after 12 weeks.

Is that why vaccinated are getting sicker and are infected? maybe there is a reason why un vaccinated are getting sicker.


but doctors and scientists told the BBC suggesting it doesn't protect others at all is overstating the case.





Vaccinated people also seem to clear the virus faster and have less of it in their system - reducing their chances of passing it on.

So can the un vaccinated if you are healthy and dont have to many healthy issue, i know some who had it and they were un vaxed and were all better the next four/five days no issues post since.





edit on 16-1-2022 by vNex92 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-1-2022 by vNex92 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2022 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: puzzled2

Monoclonal antibodies can be used to block inflammation. These guys block the JAK pathway, which blocks STAT, which blocks cytokine activation and then blocks lymphocyte activation. RA is caused by a self sustaining complement activation of neutrophils stimulated by inflammatory signaling and tagging of host tissue by lymphocytes and even antibodies. You remove lymphocyte signaling, the neutrophil reaction should stop as they exhaust themselves and are no longer primed by the immune response, theoretically, plus it stops the lymphocytes from joining the attack party. In this case, it slows down the destruction of inflamed and infected host tissue at the cost of increasing viral replication.

Long term use of this drug will allow extra cellular and intra cellular pathogens to take advantage of the host.

It’s like how nucleoside analogs work for many RNA viruses to stop gene replication or ivermectin interferes with nuclear transport to push the cell into S phase for many viruses. No conspiracy just Molecular biology and insurance companies and health care organizations wanting to control medications based on their use and cost analysis.



posted on Jan, 16 2022 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: puzzled2
Was that a reason Ivermectin and HCQ couldn't be considered because there was no viral prevention mechanism?

They couldn't have a good, viable treatment for covid and still fast-track the EUA vaccine.

Not to mention HCQ and IVM are cheap and already readily available.



posted on Jan, 17 2022 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

Joe Rogan was hated by CNN for using "Human version of IVM" MSM only believes that IVM is for animals yet they ignore the science behind it.



posted on Jan, 17 2022 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: vNex92

"Is that why vaccinated are getting sicker and are infected? maybe there is a reason why un vaccinated are getting sicker."

Got any actual evidence for that claim, please?



posted on Jan, 18 2022 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: vNex92
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

Joe Rogan was hated by CNN for using "Human version of IVM" MSM only believes that IVM is for animals yet they ignore the science behind it.


Well, let's forget about CNN and all media for the purposes of having an honest conversation about ivermectin. For starters, use of Ivermectin in humans has been around since at least 1987 for the treatment of onchocerciasis, as outlined below.



The first formulation destined to humans was launched in 1987, when Merck Laboratories had enough data to register ivermectin for use against onchocerciasis. The company announced that the drug would be provided at no cost to treat onchocerciasis, anywhere in the world, for as long as it was needed.


The above is from a 2008 mini-review in the Springer Link.

However, some important key factors, as duly pointed out in a South African study shows why there is pushback in the scientific community which is not being translated well in the "pseudo-science collaborators" (my denotation, not theirs) community.

In a more recent ethical review in South Africa found here I would like to point out things everyone should keep in mind before advocating for one "treatment" versus another.

Evidence synthesis, and vulnerabilities in the translation of evidence into recommendations



Five recent reviews of ivermectin in the management of COVID-19 have achieved widespread social media and public prominence. Two were published in the American Journal of Therapeutics and two are preprints in journals in the Oxford University Press stable. The fifth is a recently released Cochrane review. In three of the five reviews, the summary reports mortality benefits using very positive language despite low-quality evidence rendering such a conclusion highly uncertain. For example, Kory et al. state: 'Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance.'

Many readers may have neither the time nor the inclination to read the body of the reviews in sufficient detail to pick up the extreme frailty of such conclusions, and instead some have further disseminated these 'news-bite' affirmations of efficacy. Editors and reviewers have a responsibility to consider the implications of how information is presented, in this case to avoid global overuse of a medicine of undetermined efficacy. In some settings, patients have resorted to illegally imported or veterinary products when registered oral solid dosage forms were unavailable.


The above is critically important to remember when drawing conclusions on the efficacy of a particular treatment.

The importance of meticulous evidence-based medicine during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic


In the past few decades, reaching conclusions about the efficacy and safety of medical interventions has moved from reliance on expert opinion to a more public and formalised collaborative process of searching for evidence, appraising its quality, and synthesising the data to inform decision-making. The conclusions reached are critically dependent on unbiased adherence to all steps, and on the quality of the underlying evidence. A critical final process entails transforming conclusions about strength and direction of evidence into clinically useful recommendations, often by groups independent of the review process. A key principle is that decisions can and should be made using the best available evidence, even when this is imperfect. Relying on anecdotal and weak observational evidence can be dangerously misleading, particularly in situations of limited biological plausibility.

Considerable time and effort are needed to perform a systematic review, and when done well, these are valuable resources for clinical and policy decision-making. Systematic reviews, like any human endeavour, have vulnerabilities.


Dont believe everything on the internet.

A big problem that's been happening and continue to happen:
Inclusion of the results of preprint studies in meta-analyses circumvents peer review


Peer review of articles prior to publication is a valuable tool for detection of error, ranging from simple mistakes in calculation and reporting to more substantive flaws in design and implementation. In extreme cases, peer review may detect fraud. Preprint servers have provided rapid access to new research in the current pandemic, but this accelerated access comes at the cost of reduced certainty about article quality. Published reviews using preprint reports bypass the peer review process and may lend undeserved legitimacy to these reports, as well as creating a critical weakness in the review itself.


This is a big one that should abslutely resonate here:

Clinical influences of group think and social media facilitation


The psychological process of group think further exacerbates this. The need for consensus leads to ignoring divergent opinions and explanations; this process is self-perpetuating in that the more strongly a group embraces a position, the more invested it becomes in demonstrating its validity, leading to 'cherry-picking' of supporting evidence. This selected evidence further strengthens beliefs, to the extent that countervailing explanations are stridently opposed, often accompanied by ad hominem attacks on those attempting to voice contrary views.

Social media facilitates group think, not only by allowing rapid dissemination of ever more extreme positions, but also by vastly increasing membership through international recruitment. In larger groups there will be higher absolute numbers at the extremes, leading to further polarisation.



There's a LOT of mis/disinformation out there, but it seems we keep adding to it by not being willing to let science do its job. Me personally, i prefer to not be a part of the problem.



posted on Jan, 18 2022 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

Which science do you believe there has been through enough "meticulous evidence-based medicine during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic"?

It would seem that if an acceptable pass rate of effectiveness was 30 to 50% for an new vaccine the same should be acceptable for using a therapeutic. Should it not?


Another side effect of treating a sars-cov-2 infection with Ivermectin, which is not talked about, is to do it primary role of getting rid of parasites.
Which according to the CDC is rife in the USA.
No research has shown if those with severe cases of covid-19 are infected with a parasite also.

The fact remains that the biggest mis/disinformation campaign was directed towards Ivermectin and other non-profitable remedies.

Me personally, I prefer to be a part of the problem and not accept spoon-fed science propaganda.

Please look at the information with an open mind - when highly educated people are saying things are not right and MSM attacks the person and not the science, you know they are spreading the truth. Step outside of covid world and look at history - Smoking -was ok, Trans-fats -was ok and many Pharma drugs pulled with massive fines for lying about the evidence.
It's is clearly there to see profit before people.

Science has always been controlled by those in Ivory towers, until the ground swell of outsiders force their re-thinking. Remember the earth was flat for many years according to those in charge.



posted on Jan, 18 2022 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: alphabetaone

Which science do you believe there has been through enough "meticulous evidence-based medicine during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic"?


What I believe really isn't important. Im not a scientist. I leave that for the professionals and to convey that in good faith.


originally posted by: puzzled2

It would seem that if an acceptable pass rate of effectiveness was 30 to 50% for an new vaccine the same should be acceptable for using a therapeutic. Should it not?


Not necessarily. It would depend on the control group and the effectiveness over time that would sway me.


originally posted by: puzzled2

Another side effect of treating a sars-cov-2 infection with Ivermectin, which is not talked about, is to do it primary role of getting rid of parasites.
Which according to the CDC is rife in the USA.
No research has shown if those with severe cases of covid-19 are infected with a parasite also.



Why would there be? Is there something to suggest that parasites are somehow a related comorbidity with COVID? I mean we can't just start pulling at straws and hoping one of them is somehow COVID related..... I mean according to the CDC auto accidents are also rife in the USA, are they COVID related?

But if there is some correlation of parasites to COVID, i would love to read about it.


originally posted by: puzzled2

The fact remains that the biggest mis/disinformation campaign was directed towards Ivermectin and other non-profitable remedies.


That's not a fact.... inconclusivity about a treatment is not tantamount to dis/misinformation.


originally posted by: puzzled2

It's is clearly there to see profit before people.

Science has always been controlled by those in Ivory towers, until the ground swell of outsiders force their re-thinking. Remember the earth was flat for many years according to those in charge.


I dont disagree. But what you're suggesting here is that the masses of ignorant rule the roost by way of numbers and not by way of science. Saying something "is not right" is not the same as proving something is not right...and proof takes time and patience. The post-COVID world has no patience for it - understandbly - but that doesn't change how science works.



new topics

top topics



 
118
<< 267  268  269   >>

log in

join