Pyrrho wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 11:03 amhttps://www.reuters.com/business/health ... 022-01-31/
Japanese trading and pharmaceuticals company Kowa Co Ltd (7807.T) on Monday said that anti-parasite drug ivermectin showed an "antiviral effect" against Omicron and other coronavirus variants in joint non-clinical research.
The company, which has been working with Tokyo's Kitasato University on testing the drug as a potential treatment for COVID-19, did not provide further details.
The press release apparently is about in vitro non-clinical research that is completely separate from Kowa's ongoing Phase III Clinical trials in human subjects.
Here's the follow-up:
Kowa says ivermectin not effective in treating COVID-19
A clinical trial was unable to prove the efficacy of the antiparasitic medicine ivermectin against coronavirus variants, according to Japanese drugmaker Kowa Co., which has indicated that it will no longer seek approval for the drug as a COVID-19 treatment.
The Nagoya-based pharmaceutical and trading company announced the results of a randomized, double-blind, international clinical trial on Sept. 26. In the trial, 1,030 patients with mild COVID-19 were orally administered the drug daily for three days and then compared to others given a placebo.
Ivermectin was found to be safe and few people given the drug developed severe symptoms, Kowa said. But both the group given the drug and the one administered a placebo saw improvements in symptoms, meaning the trial did not show the drug’s efficacy over the placebo as a COVID-19 treatment.
Kitasato University has concurred: Ivermectin Fails in Investigator-Led COVID Trial Too
Kitasato University Hospital said on September 30 that the antiparasitic agent ivermectin could not yield a statistically significant difference against placebo in the primary endpoint in an investigator-initiated trial for the treatment of COVID-19.
...aannnddd the anti-vaxxers and "it's just a cold" Illuminati are having a field day because, apparently, a Pfizer executive said to Congress something regarding the vaccine not having been tested for prevention of transmission of the virus. I haven't the time right now to review the available data from the FDA approval process and I don't know exactly what was said or in what context. But I am sure that people much smarter than I am will tell me.
IT MEANS DUCTH PROVE BIG PHAMRA TEST UNBORN BABIES ON OUR CHIDLRENS AND MORE CHILRENS DIES OF BIG PHARMA THAN VIRYS U CANT EVEN SMELL!
The more serious, possible, legal, point is that if "prevent transmission," was the basis of enforcing vaccination, then that might be a legal problem. Of course, all of that qualification and what the law, anywhere, will actually do is not even the same game.
While Roos and many others framed this as a new revelation, Pfizer never claimed that its clinical trial, upon which the vaccine was authorized for use, evaluated the shot’s effect on transmission. In fact, shortly before the vaccine’s release, the company’s CEO emphasized that this was still being evaluated.
A study funded by Pfizer and German vaccine maker BioNTech published in the New England Journal of Medicine on Dec. 10, 2020, a day before the Food and Drug Administration gave Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine emergency use authorization, did not include data about the vaccine’s effectiveness at reducing transmission of the virus.
Instead, it reported that two doses of the vaccine provided 95% protection against contracting symptomatic COVID-19 in people 16 and older. Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla also said in a December 2020 interview with NBC News that it was still unclear whether vaccinated individuals could carry the virus and transmit it to others.
“I think this is something that needs to be examined,” he told the network. “We are not certain about that right now.”
Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 lowers the risk of long COVID after infection by only about 15%, according to a study of more than 13 million people1. That’s the largest cohort that has yet been used to examine how much vaccines protect against the condition, but it is unlikely to end the uncertainty.
ceptimus wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:17 pm
If there are lots of people who've had it and recovered that we don't know about, then that's good news for the death ratio, but it's bad news for the transmission ratio because that means it's spreading much faster than official figures show.
Research at Boston University that involved testing a lab-made hybrid version of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is garnering heated headlines alleging the scientists involved could have unleashed a new pathogen.
There is no evidence the work, performed under biosecurity level 3 precautions in BU’s National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories, was conducted improperly or unsafely. In fact, it was approved by an internal biosafety review committee and Boston’s Public Health Commission, the university said Monday night.
But it has become apparent that the research team did not clear the work with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which was one of the funders of the project. The agency indicated it is going to be looking for some answers as to why it first learned of the work through media reports.
“Yeah but except for those two times, we have been very very careful”
Yeah, sure. And of course you KNEW it was a deadly virus, because you created it. But sure, we trust you. I mean, if you created some deadly virus and it escaped the whole world might get infected and millions would die. Fascist might use the virus to destroy freedoms and fuck everything up … so I’m sure it can’t ever happen
Effect of Ivermectin vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With Mild to Moderate COVID-19
Findings In this double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled platform trial conducted in the US during a period of Delta and Omicron variant predominance, and that included 1591 adult outpatients with COVID-19, the posterior probability of improvement in time to recovery in those treated with ivermectin vs placebo had a hazard ratio of 1.07, with a posterior probability of benefit of .91. This did not meet the prespecified threshold of posterior probability greater than .95.
Meaning These findings do not support the use of ivermectin in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19.
A coronavirus outbreak on the verge of being China’s biggest of the pandemic has exposed a critical flaw in Beijing’s “zero covid” strategy: a vast population without natural immunity. After months with only occasional hot spots in the country, most of its 1.4 billion people have never been exposed to the virus.
Chinese authorities, who on Friday reported nearly 33,000 infections, are scrambling to protect the most vulnerable populations. They have launched a more aggressive vaccine drive to boost immunity, expanded hospital capacity and started to restrict the movement of at-risk groups. The elderly, who have an especially low vaccination rate, are a key target.
These efforts, which stop short of approving foreign vaccines, are an attempt to keep the virus from overwhelming a health-care system ill-prepared for a flood of very sick covid patients.
Although boosting with a bivalent vaccine is likely to have a similar effect as boosting with a monovalent vaccine, booster dosing is probably best reserved for the people most likely to need protection against severe disease — specifically, older adults, people with multiple coexisting conditions that put them at high risk for serious illness, and those who are immunocompromised. In the meantime, I believe we should stop trying to prevent all symptomatic infections in healthy, young people by boosting them with vaccines containing mRNA from strains that might disappear a few months later.
The latest recombinant strain of Omicron, XBB 1.5, is the most contagious yet, and will soon displace all the other strains, unless something even easier to transmit comes along. In this context, 'soon' means the next few weeks in the USA (where it's probably already the most common strain), and the next couple of months in Europe.
It's estimated that about 80% of people will eventually catch it: the currently available vaccines provide very little protection.
The good news is that, in the vast majority of people, the symptoms aren't very bad - just the usual runny nose and other things you get with a "common cold" with full recovery after a few days.
The immunity you'll get to the virus, by catching this strain, is likely to last much longer than any immunity you'll get from the currently available vaccines.
ceptimus wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 9:47 pmThe immunity you'll get to the virus, by catching this strain, is likely to last much longer than any immunity you'll get from the currently available vaccines.
A review of the evidence for efficacy of the bivalent vaccines.
Meanwhile, the FDA and CDC have reported a "Preliminary COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Signal" for stroke associated with the Pfizer bivalent vaccine, but it's too early to jump to any conclusion:
CDC and FDA Identify Preliminary COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Signal for Persons Aged 65 Years and Older
Read the whole thing, not just the headline, because:
Although the totality of the data currently suggests that it is very unlikely that the signal in VSD represents a true clinical risk, we believe it is important to share this information with the public, as we have in the past, when one of our safety monitoring systems detects a signal. CDC and FDA will continue to evaluate additional data from these and other vaccine safety systems. These data and additional analyses will be discussed at the upcoming January 26 meeting of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.
No change in vaccination practice is recommended. CDC continues to recommend that everyone ages 6 months of age and older stay up-to-date with COVID-19 vaccination; this includes individuals who are currently eligible to receive an updated (bivalent) vaccine. Staying up-to-date with vaccines is the most effective tool we have for reducing death, hospitalization, and severe disease from COVID-19, as has now been demonstrated in multiple studies conducted in the United States and other countries:
In that video, he just presents the findings of a peer reviewed study. You can read the study yourself if you think Campbell is putting some misleading spin on it: he always puts links to the studies in his YouTube video descriptions.
Lab Leak Most Likely Origin of Covid-19 Pandemic, Energy Department Now Says
U.S. agency’s revised assessment is based on new intelligence
Misleading, irresponsible headline by @WSJ
with this covid lab leak story. Many people won’t read past it to learn that the Energy Department holds a minority view among US agencies and rated this conclusion as “low confidence”