Published: October 16, 2020 Share on: Twitter / Facebook Select LanguageCzechDutchEnglishFrenchGermanGreekHebrewHungarianItalianJapaneseKoreanPolishPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishTurkishPowered by
SPR and other independent experts warned early on that the very expensive “anti-viral” drug remdesivir, produced by Gilead and promoted by the media, is a failure. Dr. Paul Marik, author of the EVMS Covid-19 Critical Care Protocol, called remdesivir a “particularly useless drug” and Gilead’s aggressive marketing campaign “Wall Street centered, not patient-centered”.
The newly published results of the global WHO Solidarity trial now confirm that remdesivir reduces neither hospital stay (time to recovery) nor mortality. But remdesivir is not just a “useless drug”, it may in fact be a dangerous one, as its liver and kidney toxicity in covid patients has been widely documented and is currently being investigated by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).
Investigative journalist Dilyana Gaytandzhieva recently revealed how Gilead paid more than $200 million to US doctors and hospitals to promote its drugs despite several hundred drug-related deaths (this is referring to Gilead’s hepatitis C drug, in particular).
Moreover, several of the fraudulent anti-HCQ studies were published by researchers linked to or paid by remdesivir producer Gilead. The WHO trial itself used toxic overdoses of HCQ, as first revealed by US doctor and biohazard expert Meryl Nass in June (the WHO trial was halted thereafter).
(Update: As the Guardian reports, Gilead knew about the negative WHO trial results since September 23, but nevertheless signed a $1 billion deal for 500,000 doses of remdesivir with the European Commission, which did not yet know about the results, on October 8.)
Based on current scientific and clinical evidence, it is best to treat high-risk covid patients as early as possible to avoid disease progression and hospitalization. For more information, see the recent video presentation on ambulatory treatment of covid by Dr. Peter McCullough.
[MEK Note: The author has many good observations and opinions on Covid situation. However, I am not able to support his position on climate change. I will have to look more closely at some point, but I feel in many ways that a pending climate catastrophe is the reason behind the Covid situation and the responses from financial and political elites concerning Covid.]
When the alleged “pandemic” was declared in March of 2020, I, like millions of other people around the world, was paying close attention to politicians and public health officials as well as to bureaucrats from the Rockefeller Foundation-created World Health Organization (WHO), all of whom announced, in almost perfect synchronicity, “This is the new normal until a vaccine can be developed.”
How odd, I thought. Why is it that the immediate default position is a vaccine? And why is it that a single coronavirus is being blamed for causing people to fall ill in every corner of the earth? Could something else—perhaps one or more toxins in the environment—be the real culprit?
It was impossible to stop myself from asking question after question and pondering possible answers. For, if public health authorities in nearly every jurisdiction (from international healthy organizations to national health agencies to state and local health departments) on the planet were truly concerned about citizens’ well-being, then:
Why was it that natural immunity, which has been a key component to human health and survival for over 200,000 years, was suddenly being treated as if it didn’t exist anymore?
Why was no one in charge urging us to eat a healthy, nutritionally balanced, organic diet, low in sugar content?
Why did no one mention the importance of getting enough sleep?
Why were we not being encouraged to go outdoors and exercise?
Why was no one suggesting we increase our zinc and vitamin D intake? After all, scientists have known for over fifty years that vitamin D, either absorbed naturally from the sun or taken orally in tablet form, is extremely beneficial to the human body in many ways, especially in building a strong innate immune system.
All of the preceding points, if taken seriously, could have helped us improve our immune system and given us an opportunity to combat the negative effects of the syndrome known as COVID-19.
Even more bizarre was the fact that, from the very start of the “pandemic,” the corporate-controlled media had been continually seeking the opinion of Bill Gates, who is neither a doctor nor a scientist, on what course of action governments around the world should be taking to combat the spread of the so-called SARS-CoV-2 virus.
As two weeks of global lockdowns—allegedly “to flatten the curve”—dragged on and turned into several months of lockdowns, it became painfully obvious that none of the “public health measures”—ranging from physical distancing to masking to self-isolation—being implemented by governments around the world had anything to do with their stated purpose of keeping everyone COVID-free.
These measures did, however, perform two key roles completely unrelated to public health:
First, they were calculated from the beginning to create a polarized population. Indeed, we have been made the subjects of a social engineering experiment intended to divide humanity—thus preventing us from communicating, converging, cooperating, and rising up together against a diabolical plan designed to eradicate representative democracy, sovereign nation-states, and individual liberties.
Second, they had the intended consequence of shutting down the global economy, sending millions of people into bankruptcy, extreme poverty, and despair. The vultures devouring the dead and decaying pieces of the shattered economy are powerful financial interests—big banks and businesses and billionaires whose goal is to control every sector of the economy, including all natural resources and all public and private assets. These predators, though few in number, have wreaked the havoc requisite for them to buy—for pennies on the dollar—every possible possession in the entire world. But they are neither content to be wealthy beyond belief nor satisfied with owning everything. Rather, it seems they will not rest until they have achieved complete world domination by exploiting and enslaving all of us.
In the two years of a “pandemic”-driven panic that most of the world seems to have succumbed to, many nations have been ruled by illegal executive orders and health department guidelines, all promulgated in the name of “following the science.” What this hijacked term really means is that scared-out-of-their-wits citizens are following the worldwide mandate to believe a false narrative that lays all the blame for all the destruction on an alleged virus—a non-isolated, unpurified, computer-generated, allegedly “novel” virus. Meanwhile, the enshrined constitutional and civil rights of billions of human beings are being shredded.
Of all the thoughts that ran through my mind, the one that struck the deepest chord was the realization that a naturally occurring, helpful element in the environment was being blamed as the source of the pseudo pandemic. I understood that, just as there are “global warming” swindlers who falsify climate data and write inaccurate academic reports so they can pretend to vilify carbon dioxide (an element that generateslife on earth—the opposite of killing life!) and thus make scads of money from their scam, so are there “pandemic” gangsters who pretend to vilify another marvel of the natural world—the virus—for the same venal purpose.
I knew I must do something with my realization. That is, I had to research to prove my theory was fact, not fancy. For four solid months, I spent all my free hours reading countless articles and watching umpteen interviews. (See my acknowledgements below to find out who my main sources were.) Next, I amassed everything I had learned and wrote a four-part article. When it was published on the Global Research website, it received so many views and positive comments that the Global Research editor encouraged me to turn it into a short book. This is that book.
My hope is that I have succeeded in deconstructing the official narrative: first, by explaining how viruses have been blanketing the earth with their genetic codes for eons, creating biodiversity and allowing for adaptation throughout the ecosystem, and, second, by pointing out the myriad ways reckless human behaviour is creating a real environmental catastrophe—not the carbon-is-the-culprit con, but actual pollution and deforestation and species extinction, to name a few such scourges. These real problems are being ignored by the fake “climate change” crowd, who hide their mercenary motives behind euphemisms like “sustainable development goals” (SDGs) and “environmental, social, and governance” benchmarks (ESGs) and florid phrases such as the “Great Reset” and “Build Back Better.”
Our Species is Being Genetically Modified
Are We Witnessing Humanity’s March toward Extinction? Viruses Are Our Friends, Not Our Foes
Published: April 12, 2021 (upd.) Share on: Twitter / Facebook Select LanguageCzechDutchEnglishFrenchGermanGreekHebrewHungarianItalianJapaneseKoreanPolishPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishTurkishPowered by
Is inhaled budesonide (an asthma drug) really “90% effective” against covid? Not so fast.
First of all, two British budesonide trials, not one, have been published in recent days: the smaller Oxford trial published in the Lancet (about 70 patients receiving budesonide) and the larger PRINCIPLE trial published as a preprint (about 750 patients receiving budesonide).
In both trials, budesonide achieved no significant improvement in any “hard endpoint”: in the PRINCIPLE trial, there was no significant difference in hospitalizations, deaths, hospital assessment without admission, oxygen administration, and ICU admission. In the Oxford trial, there was no significant difference in the proportion of people and days with an oxygen saturation below 94%, PCR cycle threshold increase (i.e. viral clearance), and FluPRO-measured symptom resolution.
Instead, both trials used “soft endpoints” to claim an effect of budesonide: in the PRINCIPLE trial, the time to “self-reported recovery” was 3 days faster (11 days vs. 14 days); in the Oxford trial, the percentage of hospitalizations OR “urgent care visits” was significantly lower (2 vs. 11 persons), BUT only one person actually WAS hospitalized and required oxygen.
These “soft results” without “hard results” are best explained by a combination of the placebo effect (there was no placebo in the control group) and some suppression of covid symptoms by budesonide (a corticosteroid, which may reduce chest pain and facilitate breathing).
In the Oxford trial, people who received no treatment (and no placebo) were a bit more likely to contact a doctor, but weren’t actually worse off in terms of oxygen saturation. In the PRINCIPLE trial, people receiving budesonide “self-reported” symptom resolution a little bit earlier, but they weren’t actually better off in terms of hospitalization or ICU admission.
Both trials started in early 2020 and, therefore, strongly overestimated the severity of covid in the general population (they assumed a 20% hospitalization rate). In the Oxford trial, the median age of “patients” (participants) was just 45 years, and their initial PCR ct value was already a very high 32. In the Principle trial, at least, most “patients” (participants) were older than 60 years.
Conclusion: The Oxford and PRINCIPLE trials showed no real benefit of budesonide in terms of hard endpoints. Their press releases were embellished and exaggerated. Moreover, both trials had financial ties to AstraZeneca, the manufacturer of budesonide.
Why did most researchers, doctors, and the media fall for it? Because ‘Oxford’, ‘Lancet’, and ‘PRINCIPLE’. The same people already fell for the fraudulent remdesivir, anti-HCQ and WHO mask studies published in the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine.
Nevertheless, in the PRINCIPLE trial, participants receiving budesonide had a somewhat lower combined risk of hospitalization and death (8.5% vs. 10.3%), of oxygen administration (5.8% vs. 8.4%), and of ICU admission (1.2% vs. 2.2%). These differences were not statistically significant (too few events), but they might indicate a positive effect of budesonide in some patients.
Autoimmunity to annexin A2 strongly predicts covid mortality (Zuniga et al)
Published: July 15, 2021 Share on: TG / TW / FB Select LanguageCzechDutchEnglishFrenchGermanGreekHebrewHungarianItalianJapaneseKoreanPolishPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishTurkishPowered by
“Severe COVID-19 is not a viral pneumonia, but a post-viral autoimmune attack on the lung.”
Note: Patients are asked to consult a doctor.
Already in 2020, multiple studies indicated that severe covid is not just a viral pneumonia, but might be a so-called anti-phospholipid antibody syndrome (APS), i.e. an autoimmune attack against phospholipids in endothelial cells causing hypercoagulation, thrombosis, and respiratory failure.
A new study, published in the European Respiratory Journal, now seems to confirm this hypothesis. Senior author Dr David Lee concludes: “Severe COVID-19 is not a viral pneumonia, but a post-viral autoimmune attack on the lung. The target of this autoimmune attack is Annexin A2, a phospholipid-binding protein () ensuring integrity of the pulmonary vasculature and promoting lung elasticity. Antagonism of Annexin A2 would cause lung blood clots, pulmonary edema, and ARDS.”
The chart above shows how anti-Annexin A2 auto-antibodies among hospitalized covid patients strongly predict mortality. Dr. Lee concludes: “It’s time for us to fully reassess how we define the pathophysiology of COVID-19 and consider alternative explanations.” Indeed, the antiphospholipid theory may well explain why most attempts at treating hospitalized covid patients have failed.
The anti-phospholipid syndrome (APS) is already well-known from chronic auto-immune diseases, notably rheumatoid arthritis and lupus (SLE). One of the standard medications to prevent APS is, of course, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). HCQ inhibits APS thrombotic events by inhibiting the anti-phospholipid autoimmune response (the immunomodulatory effect of HCQ) and by inhibiting platelet activation (similar to aspirin). In fact, in patients with chronic autoimmune disease, HCQ and aspirin are often used in combination to achieve optimal results.
In the highly politicized covid debate, both proponents and opponents of HCQ falsely assumed that HCQ would act as an anti-viral drug, which it does not (it also doesn’t act as a zinc ionophore, as a Spanish study showed). As a consequence of this, the design of most HCQ covid studies was misguided (or simply fake, as in the case of Surgisphere’s Lancet “study” that fooled the world).
If HCQ doesn’t act as an anti-viral drug, it cannot prevent covid infection, cannot prevent general covid symptoms (like fever or anosmia), cannot prevent covid pneumonia, and hence cannot even prevent hospitalization due to pneumonia. The only effect one can hope for is prevention of anti-phospholipid syndrome and death if HCQ is administered early enough (or as a prophylaxis). In low-risk patients, who won’t develop APS, HCQ will have no measurable effect at all.
It is far from certain that HCQ is indeed effective against covid APS, but some of the largest early treatment studies did indeed find a protective effect. For instance, a recent retrospective Iranian study with close to 30,000 participants, published in the Journal of International Immunopharmacology, found a reduction in hospitalizations of 38% and a reduction in deaths of 73%. (1)
Furthermore, most covid trials studied only a single drug at a time, basically looking for a “wonder drug”, whereas in many viral and autoimmune diseases, multiple drugs have to be applied to achieve optimal results. In the case of covid, it is obvious that one should try to inhibit viral replication as well as the hyperinflammatory, autoimmune and prothrombotic response. Indeed, this is what most early treatment protocols try to achieve. Once the damage is done, it is often too late to treat.
Finally, it should be added that thrombotic and thrombocytopenic events after covid vaccinations (e.g. blood clots, strokes or bleeding) may also be due to a vaccine-induced APS response.
Notes
1) The mistaken claim that HCQ caused heart failure in covid patients has long been refuted, unless patients received toxic overdoses, as in the horrendous Oxford Recovery and WHO Solidarity trials. Moreover, unlike the older chloroquine, HCQ doesn’t cause anemia in people with favism, either.
Updated: November 30, 2021 Published: October 6, 2021 Share on: Twitter / Facebook / Telegram Select LanguageDutchEnglishFrenchGermanGreekHebrewHungarianItalianJapaneseKoreanPolishPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishTurkishPowered by
Is Merck’s new antiviral covid pill a miracle drug or a cytotoxic mutagen?
(Update: Newly released data shows that Molnupiravir is a failure.)
In a recent press release, Merck writes that its new oral antiviral drug Molnupiravir reduced covid hospitalizations by about 50%, from about 14% in the control group to about 7% in the treatment group, in a phase 3 trial with about 800 participants. The study itself has not yet been published. According to press reports, Molnupiravir would cost about $700 per treatment.
The mode of action of Molnupiravir is similar to the mechanism of failed Remdesivir – so-called ‘lethal mutagenesis’, i.e. adding mutations to break RNA viral replication – but in contrast to Remdesivir, Molnupiravir is said to be resistant to the coronavirus genetic proofreading mechanism.
On the positive side, the Molnupiravir trial was designed as an early outpatient treatment study (within 5 days of symptom onset) targeting high-risk patients (over 60 or with a major risk factor, hence the high hospitalization rates). This is how it should be done. In contrast, many studies of low-cost, off-patent repurposed drugs were done in hospitalized patients or included young and healthy patients, making it almost impossible to achieve statistically significant results.
On the negative side, no matter what Merck may claim, the active form of Molnupiravir (EIDD-2801) has been shown to have mutagenic properties, which may cause DNA damage during DNA replication and, thus, potentially increase the risk of cancer or birth defects. Indeed, during and after Merck’s Molnupiravir trial, participants had to “abstain from heterosexual intercourse”.
This is the reason why the original developer, PharmaAsset, stopped development of the drug almost 20 years ago. For the same reason, the former head of the US Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), Rick Bright, denied funding to the trial of Molnupiravir back in April 2020; in response, Bright got fired by the US Health Department and went public with a complaint.
Ironically, while Merck is claiming, without published evidence, that its novel, high-priced and potentially mutagenic drug is “safe”, back in February, the same Merck claimed, also without evidence, that its off-patent, low-price and well-established drug Ivermectin may not be safe.
As usual, most media and many ‘health experts’ simply took the recent Merck press release at face value and got enthusiastic about the new experimental drug (“game changer”), despite the fact that both Remdesivir in 2020 and Oseltamivir (Tamiflu) in 2009 (during the fake “swine flu pandemic”) turned out to be useless or even toxic multi-billion dollar “failures”. Indeed, Tamiflu manufacturer Roche is still facing a $1.5 billion lawsuit over false claims concerning the drug’s effectiveness.
Back in 2007, Merck itself was sued by about 50,000 people over strokes and heart attacks caused by its FDA-approved arthritis drug Vioxx; Merck ultimately had to pay damages of close to $5 billion.
Thus, to truly ascertain the effectiveness and safety of Merck’s novel Molnupiravir anti-covid drug, independent studies are required. Of course, such studies are very unlikely to happen in the near future. Instead, governments will simply stock up on the drug for billions of dollars.
Senate Bill 2, a new law passed in September & signed by Gov. Newsom establishes a Commission on Peace Officers Standards & Training to review local investigations into allegations of police misbehavior, may recommend suspending or revoking an officer’s license. It will also have the power to instigate further investigations or police behavior and recommend disciplinary action. The Commission will be composed of 2 police representatives & 6 members of the community and an attorney, if deemed useful. Very powerful California police unions lobbied against the bill. This bill will make it harder for a cop to be discharged in one jurisdiction and just get another police position somewhere else. California is no longer one of four states without a police decertification process.
Assembly Bill 89 raises the minimum age of newly hired officers from 18 to 21.
Assembly Bill 490 prohibits choke-holds and other dangerous restraint techniques.
Senate Bill 16 expands public access to police misconduct records.
“George Floyd’s Law”, Assembly Bill 26, requires police to intervene in situations where other cops are using excessive force. It requires reporting of uses of excessive force.
Proxalutamide: Hospitalization rate in male covid patients reduced by 91% (McCoy et al)
Published: June 24, 2021 Select LanguageDutchEnglishFrenchGermanGreekHebrewHungarianItalianJapaneseKoreanPolishPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishTurkishPowered by
Anti-androgens have shown promising results in Brazilian randomized controlled trials.
Note: No medical advice. Patients are asked to consult a doctor.
Back in April 2020, it was discovered that SARS-CoV-2 relies on the cellular TMPRSS2 protease as a co-receptor to gain entry into cells. The cellular expression of TMPRSS2 is driven by androgens (i.e. male sexual hormones), which may help explain why covid tends to be more severe in males compared to females and also more severe in adults compared to children.
TMPRSS2 can be targeted directly (e.g. by bromhexine and camostat), or indirectly, by using anti-androgen drugs. Bromhexine, a prescription-free cough medication, has shown promising results in several small trials and is already part of the SPR covid early treatment protocol.
In addition, it was noticed early on – during the first wave in Italy – that men receiving anti-androgen therapy – typically used against prostate cancer or hair loss – were at a much lower age-adjusted risk of severe covid and hospitalization. It was also found that anti-androgen drugs influence not only the TMPRSS2 co-receptor, but even the ACE2 main receptor used by SARS-CoV-2.
Recently, a series of multi-center, randomized, double-blinded and placebo-controlled trials by a Brazilian group found that investigational anti-androgen drug proxalutamide reduced hospitalization rates in male outpatients by 91% (see chart above); reduced mortality in hospitalized patients (male and female) by 78% (see chart below); and achieved a significantly faster viral clearance.
It should be noted that so far, these studies have been published in non-major journals (one of them is currently a pre-print), and that the Chinese manufacturer of proxalutamide, as well as the Brazilian research group, have been criticized for potential conflicts of interest and other issues.
Nevertheless, if these results get confirmed by other groups using other anti-androgen drugs, health authorities and doctors treating high-risk patients, especially in regions with a low vaccination rate or if faced with vaccine breakthrough cases, may want to consider this option. Ideally, such questions should have been answered already a year – and millions of deaths — ago.
Related: The German Association of Pharmaceutical Research Companies (VFA) has recently published a detailed overview of existing and potential anti-covid therapeutics, including anti-viral, cardiovascular, immuno-modulatory, and pulmonary drugs.
Figure: Survival rate (A) and hospital discharge rate (B) in patients treated with proxalutamide.
Proxalutamide: Survival rate and hospital discharge rate (Cadegiani et al)
Ivermectin against covid: study results by treatment stage (IVMMETA)
Updated: December 2021 Published: July 2021 Share on: TG / TW / FB Select LanguageDutchEnglishFrenchGermanGreekHebrewHungarianItalianJapaneseKoreanPolishPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishTurkishPowered by
Is ivermectin highly effective or totally useless against covid? And why is there still no agreement on this question?
Please note: Patients are asked to consult a doctor.
To date, about 60 studies – among them about 30 randomized controlled trials and about 40 peer-reviewed publications – have been done on the use of ivermectin against covid. Most of these studies found that the use of ivermectin was associated with a positive outcome, such as a reduced risk of infection, hospitalization or death (see chart above; not all of these results were significant).
Based on these studies, several meta-analyses computed positive results, too. Most recently, a WHO-supported meta-analysis of 24 randomized controlled trials found a 56% mortality reduction overall and a 70% mortality reduction in patients who received early outpatient treatment. There even appears to be a positive dose-response relationship, which is another indicator of effectiveness. (Update: The WHO-supported meta-analysis has been updated, see postscript below.)
Nevertheless, several concerns have been raised regarding the reliability of these results, and major – although not necessarily “independent” – health authorities like the WHO, the US FDA and the European EMA all continue to advise against the use of ivermectin outside of clinical trials.
First, it has been argued that there might be some publication bias, that is, only positive studies may have been published, while negative studies may have remained unpublished. However, the above mentioned meta-analysis was able to show that there is in fact no publication bias: studies that had been registered or announced did indeed get published, at least as a pre-print.
But secondly, and more importantly, it has been argued that many of the existing studies are of rather low quality: due to budget constraints, many of them are small, single-center, open-label (not double-blinded) and not perfectly randomized, thus significantly limiting their reliability. It is possible that at least some of these studies were biased towards getting a positive result.
Thirdly, and most worryingly, some of the ivermectin studies may simply be fraudulent or fake. As a matter of fact, one of the first positive studies on ivermectin, published in mid-April 2020, was from the very same group (Surgisphere) that published a fraudulent (negative) study on HCQ in the Lancet (both studies were ultimately retracted). And just last week, another seemingly positive study on ivermectin by an Egyptian group was shown to be very likely fraudulent. (See updates below.)
It remains debatable whether the groups behind these fraudulent studies simply tried to jump on the bandwagon of a promising medication, or if their role was in fact more substantial. In a context unrelated to ivermectin and covid, a former editor of the British Medical Journalrecently argued that “we have now reached a point where those doing systematic reviews must start by assuming that a study is fraudulent until they can have some evidence to the contrary.”
Finally, and contrary to what some ivermectin proponents have argued, the epidemiological evidence in favor of ivermectin is rather weak. Ivermectin hasn’t “crushed the curve” anywhere; rather, decreases in infections were mostly driven by seasonal and endemic effects. In fact, ivermectin pioneers like Peru and Mexico have some of the highest covid mortality rates in the world; to their defense, even in Latin America, ivermectin use has often been limited and local.
On the other hand, the few studies claiming that ivermectin did not work against covid are also of rather low or dubious quality. The most famous one – a Colombian trial published in JAMA – was done so poorly that over 100 scientists and doctors called for its retraction. Furthermore, the only negative meta-analysis simply excluded most positive trials, confused the control and treatment group of another trial, and made several statistical mistakes, also triggering calls for retraction.
Some of the weakest arguments against ivermectin include questioning its safety (as done by Merck, the WHO and the US FDA, despite the fact that it is one of the safest drugs in the world), or calling it a “veterinary medicine” (it is used as an anti-parasitic drug in both humans and animals, as are many other drugs). Such dubious arguments, as well as some rather obvious conflicts of interest, raise legitimate questions about the motivations of some of the critics of low-cost ivermectin.
Regarding the potential mode(s) of action of ivermectin against Sars-CoV-2 and covid, proposals by various studies (molecular simulations, in vitro and in vivo) range from direct anti-viral action or interference with cellular receptors to immuno-modulatory mechanisms. Critics argue that doses needed to achieve anti-viral action are too high, but some ivermectin study authors have disagreed.
Most recently, a detailed covid animal study by the renowned French Institute Pasteur found that ivermectin “limited inflammation and prevented clinical deterioration”, but did not reduce viral load. The study “supports the use of ivermectin as an immuno-modulatory drug in covid patients”, but it would also, if applicable to humans, directly question the validity of several studies that claimed ivermectin works as an anti-viral prophylaxis against coronavirus infection (more on this).
To resolve this situation and finally answer the question of the effectiveness of ivermectin against covid, several high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs)are currently ongoing, sponsored by large foundations or public funds. While rather late in the pandemic, these trials are certainly of crucial importance to settle the ivermectin debate.
Large and expensive RCTs may, however, come with their own intricacies. Specifically, RCTs may to some extent be “designed to succeed” – as was the case with some covid vaccine trials as well as remdesivir – or be “designed to fail”. In the case of covid – a multi-phasic disease with a very steep age-based risk gradient – a trial can be designed to fail by enrolling (young) low-risk participants, using a drug late instead of early, under-dosing the drug or in some cases even over-dosing it.
For instance, the ongoing TOGETHERtrial of ivermectin, sponsored by the Gates Foundation, was caught using just a single dose of ivermectin, whereas successful trials used two to four doses per day for up to five days. The Oxford PRINCIPLEtrial, meanwhile, was caught enrolling participants up to 15 days after symptom onset, at which point some high-risk covid patients are already dead. Of note, the Oxford group had previously “botched” several other early treatment trials.
An even deeper issue, however, is that almost all covid medication trials have been looking for a single “wonder drug”, whereas it is increasingly clear that severe covid is an auto-immune, hyper-inflammatory and pro-thrombotic condition, which in high-risk patients may have to be treated by a combination of drugs (and as early as possible). This is becoming all the more important as the long-term protection by covid vaccines appears to be falling increasingly short of expectations.
Finally, ivermectin is also a prime example of the media war that has been going on during the covid pandemic, with US social media platforms – most notably Facebook and Youtube – having censored numerous doctors, scientists and politicians supporting ivermectin, while the GAVI vaccine alliance has been buying Google ads discouraging its use. Moreover, one of the major social media “fact checking” organizations turned out to have financial ties to a covid vaccine manufacturer.
In conclusion, the current evidence base concerning the use of ivermectin in the early treatment of covid continues to be positive, but important questions regarding the quality and certainty of many studies remain. It is to be hoped that ongoing high-quality RCTs will be able to resolve the debate. Given a still rising global covid mortality of currently about ten million people, if ivermectin is even just 10% effective against covid, its professional use could already have saved a million people.
In the meantime, preliminary results of the Gates-funded TOGETHER trial of ivermectin have been published: the trial found a non-significant reduction in hospitalization of 9% and a non-significant reduction in deaths of 18%; the probability of superiority (vs. standard treatment) was calculated as 76%. Limitations of the trial include a rather short treatment duration (just three days) and a rather young patient cohort (18+, median age 52); the treatment delay is not yet known. Overall, the trial results are consistent with ivermectin being either useless or being up to 30% effective.
Update October 2021
Several additional ivermectin studies turned out to be likely fraudulent (detailed discussion here). Once low-quality studies are excluded from the analysis, the mortality benefit of ivermectin is no longer statistically significant.
The epidemiological evidence doesn’t support a strong effect of ivermectin, either: for instance, in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, known for its use of ivermectin, the total death count turned out to be 43 times higher than the official covid death toll.
Some beneficial immuno-modulatory effect – as found by the French Institute Pasteur – is still plausible, but the available evidence has become rather uncertain. Two high-quality RCTs of ivermectin are still ongoing, and ivermectin recently passed the “futility threshold” in both of these trials (i.e. >33% chance of benefit).
Updated: June 12, 2021 Published: March 31, 2021 Share on: Twitter / Facebook Select LanguageDutchEnglishFrenchGermanGreekHebrewHungarianItalianJapaneseKoreanPolishPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishTurkishPowered by
Why has Israeli all-cause mortality increased after the vaccination campaign?
(See updates below.)
By early March, Israel had vaccinated about 90% of its 65+ population and about 50% of its entire population. Covid deaths had been decreasing since the end of January, as expected, although not any faster than in some other countries with a very low vaccination rate, such as South Africa.
Concerningly, however, Israel has seen a renewed and continued increase in all-cause mortality since mid-February; in fact, by March 21, Israel reported the highest excess mortality of all countries participating in Euromomo. In contrast, many other European countries currently report a post winter wave negative excess mortality.
The cause behind this renewed increase in Israeli all-cause mortality appears to be unclear. According to Israeli newspaper YNet, the director of an Israeli clinic explained that they are currently seeing “a murky wave of heart attacks”. The director believes that this might be due to the “persistent stressful situation” and the “neglect of preventive medical care”.
Although quite a few cases of post-vaccination heart muscle inflammation, heart failure and heart attacks have been reported in Israel since December (see e.g. 1, 2, 3), the hospital director argues that “a connection to heart damage from the vaccine has not yet been proven to be significant.”
Nevertheless, given the paramount global importance of this question, Israeli and international public health authorities may want to answer it as quickly as possible.
Update, April 28
The latest data provided by the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics (updated on April 28 with data until April 4) confirms a substantial increase in deaths since late February. On April 26, Israel announced an investigation into cases of heart inflammation after covid vaccinations. In the US, too, there have been several reports of post-vaccination heart inflammation and heart attacks in young adults.
Israeli authorities have confirmed that mRNA vaccines may cause heart inflammation and heart attacks, especially in young people (in whom it is more difficult to ignore). Since February, Israeli deaths in 20 to 29 year olds have also been markedly increased (see figure below). In the US, too, all-cause mortality has markedly increased in most age groups in the wake of vaccinations.
Israel: All-cause deaths, 20-29 years, February to May, 2015 to 2021 (TP/CBS)
Comparison: Decrease in covid deaths
Daily covid deaths in Israel (high vaccination rate), Sweden (low vaccination rate), and South Africa (very low vaccination rate): the decrease since late January has been almost identical. Update: Since about mid-April, covid deaths in Israel are lower than in most other countries.
Daily covid deaths in Israel, Sweden, and South Africa (OWD)
Israel: Highest coronavirus infection rate in the world (OWD)
Updated: September 14, 2021 Published: September 2, 2021 Share on: Twitter / Facebook Select LanguageDutchEnglishFrenchGermanGreekHebrewHungarianItalianJapaneseKoreanPolishPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishTurkishPowered by
Israel is reporting the highest coronavirus infection rate in the world, showing that neither vaccine mandates nor “vaccine passports” are suitable means to limit or end the pandemic.
Israel has been a global pioneer in covid mass vaccinations as well as in introducing the highly controversial “vaccine passport” (Green Pass). Nevertheless, since late August 2021, Israel has been reporting the highest coronavirus infection rate in the entire world (see chart above).
The Israeli case clearly shows that neither covid vaccine mandates nor “vaccine passports” are suitable means to limit or end the pandemic. This is because covid vaccines are unable to reduce coronavirus infections and transmission, and they lose much of their effectiveness even against severe disease within a few months, a medical fact already known from influenza vaccines.
It should be noted that even in Israel, covid vaccines continue to provide some protection against hospitalization and severe disease (about 50%). Nevertheless, double-vaccinated Israeli citizens will again be counted as ‘unvaccinated’ and will require a third dose. It may well be, however, that “booster shots” have actually increased recent coronavirus infections (“post-vaccination spike”).
On the positive side, Israeli data confirms that natural immunity, acquired through previous infection, is much stronger and long-lasting – providing a protection up to 27 times higher than vaccination – thus opening up a realistic path out of the pandemic. Depending on the country, between 5% and 75% of the population have already acquired natural immunity.
In addition, Israel was the first country to confirm the rather troubling safety profile of covid vaccines, reporting a “murky wave of heart attacks” and an increase in all-cause mortality – even in young people – already back in March and April 2021. By now, serious and fatal cardiovascular and neurological covid vaccine adverse events have been well documented (see updated overview). Globally, covid vaccines may already have killed or severely injured more than 100,000 people.
Given the obvious failure of “vaccine passports”, several countries have already had to withdraw them. In Spain, the highest court stopped their use, calling them “ineffective and unconstitutional”; in Denmark, the government was pressured to discontinue them; in Switzerland, people will have a binding vote in November; in some US states, they have already been outlawed; in Sweden, covid mortality has remained below the European average without any major restrictions, anyway.
(Ironically, Sweden just banned Israeli citizens – even if vaccinated – from entering the country.)
In contrast, governments in places like France, Italy, Germany, Britain, Canada, and some US states (e.g. New York) have not yet abandoned their “vaccine passport” schemes, requiring them for cultural events, restaurants, public transport or even shopping. In Pakistan, people without a “vaccine certificate” can no longer use motorways or even cellphones. In many of these places, citizens have responded with large protests and civil disobedience (see videos below).
Meanwhile, the WHO has recently published a document, sponsored by the Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, detailing technical specifications for the global implementation of “vaccine certificates”. Critics have long argued that “vaccine certificates” may well be a first step towards the introduction of a global digital biometric ID system that may later be expanded into a Chinese-style “social credit” population control system (watch a video about this).
But as the Israeli example shows, “vaccine passports” have already lost their justification.
∗∗∗
Update: The WHO director for Europe acknowledged that covid vaccines won’t achieve ‘herd immunity’. The government of Iceland – which despite a record vaccination rate of 90% experienced its strongest covid wave – admitted that it was “a mistake” to have privileged vaccinated citizens. By October, ‘vaccine passport’ pioneers Singapore and Lithuania were reaching record infection rates.
∗∗∗
Israel: Mass vaccinations have failed to limit infections
Vaccinated and unvaccinated people have almost the same infection rate. (FT)
Israel: Same infection rate in unvaccinated and fully vaccinated people (Financial Times)
Vaccinated or unvaccinated: same viral load
Vaccinated and unvaccinated people are equally infectious. (Study)
Vaccinated or unvaccinated: Same viral load and infectiousness (Riemersma et al)
Protection against severe covid down to about 50%
In Israeli senior citizens, protection against severe disease has dropped to about 50%. (MOH)
Pfizer vaccine effectiveness against severe disease, by month of second dose, 65+ (Israeli MOH)
Sweden: Mortality, 1990 to 2021
No-lockdown Sweden has had an excess mortality of 10% since March 2020.
Sweden: Mortality 1990 to 2021, August to Juli (SCB)
“Vaccine passports” in France
A couple in a French bar has to show their “vaccine passport” and ID to armed police.
Bordeaux: A couple in a bar has to show their “vaccine passport” and ID to armed police. (08/2021)
