< the next problem for the CDC, which is their own data once again:
{chart showing}
... for someone under 17, the risk of death from Covid-19, assuming you get infected, is 2/100,000 (or 0.002%)
For someone 18-49, it is 50/100,000 (or 0.05%)
For someone 50-64, it is 600/100,000 (or 0.6%)
And for someone 65+, it is 9,000/100,000 (or nine percent)....
VAERS says the risk of death, shortly following vaccination for Covid-19, is at least 15,386 / 200,000,000 (remember, this is "died *with*" not "died *of*", in both cases of vaccination and infection) or 7.69/100,000. This, by the way, is wildly higher than that for the *flu* shot (about 20-30 deaths per year across 170 million shots delivered) and thus is very unlikely to be a coincidence.
Here's the problem -- this rate of risk is *per vaccine* delivered. For someone under 17, the risk of the vaccine *exceeds* the risk of their dying from Covid-19. For someone in 18-49 the math looks better -- if you only take *one shot* ever.
But that's not the paradigm, is it? Nope. So the risk of the vaccine over *three shots* a year is 21/100,000, and over six shots in total, or approximately 18 months, it is virtually the *same as* the disease.
Yet over the first 16 months or so -- most of which was during a time when there were no vaccines -- only 20% of the population was infected. The risk is taken when you *get jabbed* (is certain), but the risk of infection is only taken if you *get infected* (is not certain.)
In other words, since we now know from the CDC itself, that the vaccines are not durable, and must be repeated every four months, for someone under 50 the cross-over of risk occurs in *less than two* years, after which they are better off being infected.
For someone under 18, they are *always* better off being infected.
Remember that infection confers sterilizing immunity and, on the science, is durable. How durable we do not know precisely....
... quarantining someone *known infectious*, with reasonable scientific certainty with an infectious disease, is reasonable, because the public benefit is clear, and the personal cost limited in *time and impact*, with a zero risk of mortality due to temporary constraint on personal movement.
In the context of mandated vaccinations, the USSC has been clear as well; for a disease (e.g. smallpox) where the fatality *rate was 30%*, and the vaccine killed you one or *two times in a million*, the argument held for this reason. You had a tiny risk of dying from the vaccination (personal harm), but the public benefit with a disease that killed 30% of the time was immense.
Further, for all persons not previously infected, the personal *risk .vs. reward* odds were always positive, by utterly ridiculous ratios. When your personal risk of the smallpox vaccine killing you was 1/500,000 (0.0002%), yet the disease killed 30% of the time in non-vaccinated persons, there's little argument to be had.
This is clearly not the case here; in those under 50, repeated vaccination is, on balance, *more-dangerous* than the virus, and in those under 18, it is *always* more-dangerous, even from the first use. Never mind that the jabs *contribute nothing* to population immunity (a public good), since you can still be infected and become contagious, while infection and recovery does.
Biden's position, and that of the Federal Government, is unsupportable, on both the facts and the law. >
Providing no explanation, the DGHS revised its guidelines for the treatment of COVID-19 and removed nearly all of the repurposed drugs it had previously recommended for the treatment of asymptomatic and mild cases. They include the antibiotic doxycycline, zinc hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and even multivitamins.
Of course, claiming that the protocols using other drugs have not been effective is difficult enough, given the results obtained from the peak of cases on April 24, as the situation in India seemed to have completely gotten out of control.
Sounds to me like India was told to play by the rules or no vaccines/pharmaceuticals for you. Or perhaps US funding/support to India was threatened?
Personally, I know a person who travels for work and uses the same clinic as I do caught covid in the last week. The clinic told him to call back in two weeks if he doesn't improve and to see the ER if he can't breath. He had Ivermectin on hand from frontline. Recovered in 2 days. I think the Ivermectin is really only useful if you have it on hand and start at the first feeling of Covid even if its a false feeling. I am not a doctor so don't take my advice. My body, my choice.
Two words come to mind regarding the claim that ivermectin is a protease inhibitor: junk science.
The first clue is in the first sentence of the publication: "COVID-19 is currently the biggest threat to mankind." The second clue is in the broken English that pervades this English language scientific publication. It is beyond me how editors can let faulty sentence construction pass in a hard sciences publication.
The real problem, though, is that this paper is an "in silico" investigation. In other words, it's all computer simulations. I had a long career in enzyme targeted drug discovery at a major pharmaceutical company and I never saw an example of molecular docking or molecular dynamics simulations that produced an actual tight binding enzyme inhibitor.
They claim that ivermectin binds to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein subunits, SARS-CoV-2 protease, SARS-CoV-2 replicase, human ACE2 receptor, and human TMPRSS2 receptor protein. I wouldn't be surprised if they found that ivermectin would bind to any protein model they put in the computer.
Most importantly, there is always a simple check for molecular simulations: do the actual binding experiment with the real protein. I'm sure that by now someone, somewhere has done binding experiments with ivermectin and all the SARS-CoV-2 proteins, and that the actual answer is known. That should be in the publication, but it isn't.
This is not to say that Pfizer isn't trying to repackage ivermectin to make a profit, but I doubt that it's a potent protease inhibitor. I've worked on Dengue virus protease, and despite 20 years of chemists trying to synthesize a potent inhibitor for that target, there is not a single potent Dengue virus protease inhibitor in the literature. It's not always that easy to make an enzyme inhibitor, and the literature is filled with examples of enzymes for which chemists and molecular modelers have completely failed to design inhibitors.
I'm willing to bet that all the major pharma companies have SARS-CoV-2 protease projects in progress, but only time will tell if anyone comes up with a real, potent protease inhibitor that's a useful drug. The problem is that by the time you feel sick, the viral load is starting to peak, and inhibiting viral replication isn't going to do much good. The best you can hope for is to help clear the virus more rapidly. It's worth the effort, but if a cheap drug like ivermectin already exists to do the same thing, a protease inhibitor won't be competitive (unless of course you rig the market and governments mandate your profits for you!)
“In summary, the value of these COVID-19 inoculations is not obvious from a cost-benefit perspective for the *most vulnerable age* demographic, and is not obvious from any perspective for the *least vulnerable age* demographic.”
“Thus, our extremely conservative estimate for risk-benefit ratio is about 5/1.
In plain English, people in the 65+ demographic are five times as likely to die from the inoculation as from COVID-19, under the most favorable assumptions!”
Denninger today, in "CDC Beclowns All Mandates":
< the next problem for the CDC, which is their own data once again:
{chart showing}
... for someone under 17, the risk of death from Covid-19, assuming you get infected, is 2/100,000 (or 0.002%)
For someone 18-49, it is 50/100,000 (or 0.05%)
For someone 50-64, it is 600/100,000 (or 0.6%)
And for someone 65+, it is 9,000/100,000 (or nine percent)....
VAERS says the risk of death, shortly following vaccination for Covid-19, is at least 15,386 / 200,000,000 (remember, this is "died *with*" not "died *of*", in both cases of vaccination and infection) or 7.69/100,000. This, by the way, is wildly higher than that for the *flu* shot (about 20-30 deaths per year across 170 million shots delivered) and thus is very unlikely to be a coincidence.
Here's the problem -- this rate of risk is *per vaccine* delivered. For someone under 17, the risk of the vaccine *exceeds* the risk of their dying from Covid-19. For someone in 18-49 the math looks better -- if you only take *one shot* ever.
But that's not the paradigm, is it? Nope. So the risk of the vaccine over *three shots* a year is 21/100,000, and over six shots in total, or approximately 18 months, it is virtually the *same as* the disease.
Yet over the first 16 months or so -- most of which was during a time when there were no vaccines -- only 20% of the population was infected. The risk is taken when you *get jabbed* (is certain), but the risk of infection is only taken if you *get infected* (is not certain.)
In other words, since we now know from the CDC itself, that the vaccines are not durable, and must be repeated every four months, for someone under 50 the cross-over of risk occurs in *less than two* years, after which they are better off being infected.
For someone under 18, they are *always* better off being infected.
Remember that infection confers sterilizing immunity and, on the science, is durable. How durable we do not know precisely....
... quarantining someone *known infectious*, with reasonable scientific certainty with an infectious disease, is reasonable, because the public benefit is clear, and the personal cost limited in *time and impact*, with a zero risk of mortality due to temporary constraint on personal movement.
In the context of mandated vaccinations, the USSC has been clear as well; for a disease (e.g. smallpox) where the fatality *rate was 30%*, and the vaccine killed you one or *two times in a million*, the argument held for this reason. You had a tiny risk of dying from the vaccination (personal harm), but the public benefit with a disease that killed 30% of the time was immense.
Further, for all persons not previously infected, the personal *risk .vs. reward* odds were always positive, by utterly ridiculous ratios. When your personal risk of the smallpox vaccine killing you was 1/500,000 (0.0002%), yet the disease killed 30% of the time in non-vaccinated persons, there's little argument to be had.
This is clearly not the case here; in those under 50, repeated vaccination is, on balance, *more-dangerous* than the virus, and in those under 18, it is *always* more-dangerous, even from the first use. Never mind that the jabs *contribute nothing* to population immunity (a public good), since you can still be infected and become contagious, while infection and recovery does.
Biden's position, and that of the Federal Government, is unsupportable, on both the facts and the law. >
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/healthcare/biotech/healthcare/icmr-removes-ivermectin-and-hydroxycholoquine-hcq-from-covid-19-treatment-guidelines/articleshow/86461488.cms
Providing no explanation, the DGHS revised its guidelines for the treatment of COVID-19 and removed nearly all of the repurposed drugs it had previously recommended for the treatment of asymptomatic and mild cases. They include the antibiotic doxycycline, zinc hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and even multivitamins.
https://www.vogon.today/economic-scenarios/after-the-success-india-removes-ivermectin-from-the-covid-19-protocol-the-shadow-of-the-who/2021/06/09/
Of course, claiming that the protocols using other drugs have not been effective is difficult enough, given the results obtained from the peak of cases on April 24, as the situation in India seemed to have completely gotten out of control.
Sounds to me like India was told to play by the rules or no vaccines/pharmaceuticals for you. Or perhaps US funding/support to India was threatened?
Personally, I know a person who travels for work and uses the same clinic as I do caught covid in the last week. The clinic told him to call back in two weeks if he doesn't improve and to see the ER if he can't breath. He had Ivermectin on hand from frontline. Recovered in 2 days. I think the Ivermectin is really only useful if you have it on hand and start at the first feeling of Covid even if its a false feeling. I am not a doctor so don't take my advice. My body, my choice.
Two words come to mind regarding the claim that ivermectin is a protease inhibitor: junk science.
The first clue is in the first sentence of the publication: "COVID-19 is currently the biggest threat to mankind." The second clue is in the broken English that pervades this English language scientific publication. It is beyond me how editors can let faulty sentence construction pass in a hard sciences publication.
The real problem, though, is that this paper is an "in silico" investigation. In other words, it's all computer simulations. I had a long career in enzyme targeted drug discovery at a major pharmaceutical company and I never saw an example of molecular docking or molecular dynamics simulations that produced an actual tight binding enzyme inhibitor.
They claim that ivermectin binds to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein subunits, SARS-CoV-2 protease, SARS-CoV-2 replicase, human ACE2 receptor, and human TMPRSS2 receptor protein. I wouldn't be surprised if they found that ivermectin would bind to any protein model they put in the computer.
Most importantly, there is always a simple check for molecular simulations: do the actual binding experiment with the real protein. I'm sure that by now someone, somewhere has done binding experiments with ivermectin and all the SARS-CoV-2 proteins, and that the actual answer is known. That should be in the publication, but it isn't.
This is not to say that Pfizer isn't trying to repackage ivermectin to make a profit, but I doubt that it's a potent protease inhibitor. I've worked on Dengue virus protease, and despite 20 years of chemists trying to synthesize a potent inhibitor for that target, there is not a single potent Dengue virus protease inhibitor in the literature. It's not always that easy to make an enzyme inhibitor, and the literature is filled with examples of enzymes for which chemists and molecular modelers have completely failed to design inhibitors.
I'm willing to bet that all the major pharma companies have SARS-CoV-2 protease projects in progress, but only time will tell if anyone comes up with a real, potent protease inhibitor that's a useful drug. The problem is that by the time you feel sick, the viral load is starting to peak, and inhibiting viral replication isn't going to do much good. The best you can hope for is to help clear the virus more rapidly. It's worth the effort, but if a cheap drug like ivermectin already exists to do the same thing, a protease inhibitor won't be competitive (unless of course you rig the market and governments mandate your profits for you!)
For a major report on jab risks/ costs/ bennies, see https://www.theautomaticearth.com/2021/09/crickets/ , quoting from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002100161X# , by a team of 7 scientists (from the US, Greece, Russia, Italy etc.), in Toxicology Reports:
“In summary, the value of these COVID-19 inoculations is not obvious from a cost-benefit perspective for the *most vulnerable age* demographic, and is not obvious from any perspective for the *least vulnerable age* demographic.”
“Thus, our extremely conservative estimate for risk-benefit ratio is about 5/1.
In plain English, people in the 65+ demographic are five times as likely to die from the inoculation as from COVID-19, under the most favorable assumptions!”
If alternative treatments become available, does that mean vaccines cannot be mandatory anymore?
Ugh. My oversight. Zerohedge links to their repub of a major article from May 2021 that was almost totally suppressed:
"I Don't Know Of A Bigger Story In The World" Right Now Than Ivermectin: NYTimes Best-Selling Author
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/i-dont-know-bigger-story-world-right-now-ivermectin-nytimes-best-selling-author