Jump to content
Gordo

Just curious, anyone have a plan, or preps for global pandemic?

Recommended Posts

On 11/12/2020 at 4:25 PM, Ron Put said:

In the meantime, there is scant coverage of The Great Barrington Declaration signed by many of the most prominent experts in their fields, some risking their careers, as now the Twitter mobs are trying to "cancel" the more prominent signatories.

I went to google and did a search for “fact check great barrington” which turned up the following:

Great Barrington herd immunity document widely disputed by scientists

COVID-19 debate: Great Barrington MA takes issue with “Great Barrington Declaration”

Herd immunity letter signed by fake experts including 'Dr Johnny Bananas'

The Great Barrington Declaration: Great Ethical Confusion

Scientists Are Slamming The Great Barrington Declaration’s Call For “Herd Immunity”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2020 at 12:55 PM, KHashmi317 said:

Probably the best option thus far for COVID, even as a prophylactic (ivermectin cocktail)....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6A6RFDprIs

Not sure where one could find a doc to prescribe the cocktail, here in the US of A, esp. the prescription-only  doxycycline .

But the main ingredient -- ivermectin -- is common in (OTC???) pet dewormers:

https://www.petplace.com/article/drug-library/drug-library/library/ivermectin-ivomec-heartgard-for-dogs-and-cats/

 

Another possibility and one that may kill 2 birds with one stone is:

https://ufhealth.org/news/2020/uf-health-study-shows-flu-vaccination-might-confer-protection-against-severe-covid-19
 

these results were downright impressive. There is also a clinical trial that is using the shingles vaccine 2 months apart injections on nursing home residents with a placebo group

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two anti-inflammatory compounds shown to be capable of accelerating recovery from COVID-19

Two independent clinical studies—one by researchers at the Center for Cell-Based Therapy (CTC) in Ribeirão Preto, state of São Paulo (Brazil), on the monoclonal antibody eculizumab, and the other by scientists at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia (U.S.) on an experimental drug called AMY-101—observed a significant anti-inflammatory effect that contributed to a faster recovery by severe COVID-19 patients.

Both compounds caused a robust anti-inflammatory response that culminated in a fairly rapid recovery of respiratory function in the patients

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2020 at 12:45 PM, Mike41 said:

Another possibility and one that may kill 2 birds with one stone is:

https://ufhealth.org/news/2020/uf-health-study-shows-flu-vaccination-might-confer-protection-against-severe-covid-19
 

these results were downright impressive. There is also a clinical trial that is using the shingles vaccine 2 months apart injections on nursing home residents with a placebo group

Well, if many common colds are coronavirus-based .... and catching them means better immunity against coronaviruses generically, then SDing and masking makes little sense for non-elderly or non-co-morbid. 

I think it was a UK (????) study that revealed that individ's (pre-2019) who had corona infections (hospital records, 2015-2018 iirc ?????) were better protected against COVID-19.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, KHashmi317 said:

Well, if many common colds are coronavirus-based .... and catching them means better immunity against coronaviruses generically, then SDing and masking makes little sense for non-elderly or non-co-morbid. 

I think it was a UK (????) study that revealed that individ's (pre-2019) who had corona infections (hospital records, 2015-2018 iirc ?????) were better protected against COVID-19.

Yes I saw that. It makes perfect sense. It seems on the one hand a very strong immunity will help to prevent getting it or at least keep it under control. There is also the whole viral load issue and why bars and crowded closed in areas are particularly risky. The trickiest part is the immune response that ends up causing more severe cases. This appears to be a metabolic issue to some extent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kids mount a COVID-19 immune response without detection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus

despite close contact with symptomatic infected parents, including one child sharing the parents' bed, the children repeatedly tested negative for COVID-19 and displayed no or minor symptoms.

the parents attended an interstate wedding without their children. After returning, they developed a cough, congested nose, fever and headache

Samples including blood, saliva, nose and throat swabs, stools and urine were collected from the family every 2-3 days.

The researchers found SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies in saliva of all family members and in detailed serology testing compared to healthy controls.

The youngest child, who showed no symptoms at all, had the strongest antibody response … Despite the active immune cell response in all children, levels of cytokines, molecular messengers in the blood that can trigger an inflammatory reaction, remained low. This was consistent with their mild or no symptoms.

 

Personal note:  My grandson came home from school last Tu with cough and elevated temperature.  My daughter took him in for a testing on Wed and on Th we learned he is covid-19 positive.  Fortunately, he’s had a very mild case.  So the article above was encouraging about him developing antibodies.  So, I see two views on the disease: his mild case and my daughter’s experience as a nurse which is not unlike this one reported over the weekend.  South Dakota Nurse: Dying COVID Patients Think It’s Fake   This disease is like Russian Roulette in that most people walk away afterwards but a few suffer catastrophically. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2020 at 12:52 PM, KHashmi317 said:

Well, if many common colds are coronavirus-based .... and catching them means better immunity against coronaviruses generically, then SDing and masking makes little sense for non-elderly or non-co-morbid. 

I think it was a UK (????) study that revealed that individ's (pre-2019) who had corona infections (hospital records, 2015-2018 iirc ?????) were better protected against COVID-19.

Bullshit

  --  Saul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pfizer today gave a more detailed statement about the effectiveness of their vaccine -- Key points:

In their large phase 3 study, with a very large and diverse group:  95% effective in preventing the disease; 94% effective in people over age 65.

Aside from the usual complaints by recipients of complaints of pain at the injection site, there was only one widely reported one side effect, from those who were injected with the vaccine (as opposed to those injected with placebo):  Fatigue.

I was one of the many worldwide participants in that Pfizer Phase 3 study:  I had one, totally unexpected, side effect from the vaccine:  Heavy fatigue.

So Pfizer is effectively confirming what I already was pretty sure of:  At my two shots, I was injected with Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccine -- not placebo.

Dr. Walsh, the leading infectious disease specialist (technically retired, but actually very active -- currently associated with Rochester General hospital, formerly at the University of Rochester Medical School) in rochester, headed the Rochester branch of the worldwide Pfizer study.  (His name is present near the beginning of the two leading papers on the Pfizer worldwide study.)  Dr. Walsh assures me that I'll eventually be officially informed whether I received vaccine or placebo.  He tells me that American law requires that, as soon as some vaccine (Pfizer or other) for Covid-19 gets approval for use, and is "generally made available", I'll be officially informed.

A happy day.

😃

  --  Saul

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the bright side:

Covid Is Increasing America’s Lead Over China

Quote

[...] Yes, the U.S. has botched its response to Covid-19. At the same time, its experience shows that America as a nation can in fact tolerate casualties, too many in fact.

It had long been standard Chinese doctrine that Americans are “soft” and unwilling to take on much risk.  If you were a Chinese war game planner, might you now reconsider that assumption?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Effects of Comorbid Factors on Prognosis of Three Different Geriatric Groups with COVID-19 Diagnosis.
Görgülü Ö, Duyan M.
SN Compr Clin Med. 2020 Nov 18:1-12. doi: 10.1007/s42399-020-00645-x. Online ahead of print.
PMID: 33225222 Free PMC article.
Abstract
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a new zoonotic infectious disease that was first reported to the World Health Organization (WHO) on December 31, 2019, and declared as a pandemic by WHO on March 11, 2020. Due to the increased incidence of multimorbidity in geriatric age groups, COVID-19 disease leads to more severe consequences in the elderly. We aimed to determine the effects of age, comorbidity factors, symptoms, laboratory findings, and radiological results on prognosis by dividing our patients into 3 different geriatric age groups, using a retrospective descriptive analysis method. Patients included in the retrospective study (n = 483) were divided into the following three different geriatric age groups: young-old (65-74 years), middle-aged (75-84 years), and the oldest-elderly (85 years and over).The length of stay in the intensive care unit of the patients between the ages of 75-84 was higher than the other two groups (p = 0.013). Mortality rates were lowest in patients aged 65-74 years (p < 0.001). The rate of ground glass opacity in thorax CT was higher in patients with mortality (p < 0.001). While the rate of COPD-bronchial asthma was higher in surviving patients (p = 0.001), malignancy (p = 0.005) and cerebrovascular disease (p < 0.001) were higher in patients who died. Patients aged between 75 and 84 (OR: 2.602; 95% CI: 1.306-5.183; p = 0.007) or ≥ 85 (OR: 4.086; 95% CI: 1.687-9.9; p = 0.002) had higher risk for mortality compared to patients aged between 65 and 74. The lowest mortality rates were observed in patients aged 65-74 years. Among the supportive diagnostic methods in 3 different geriatric age groups, PCR positivity has no effect on mortality, while the ground glass opacity on tomography is closely related to the need for intensive care and increased mortality. In patients with COPD-bronchial asthma comorbidity and those with symptoms of fatigue, dry cough, and sore throat, transfer to intensive care and mortality rates were lower, while patients who were transferred to intensive care and who developed mortality had higher malignancy and cerebrovascular disease comorbidities and dyspnea symptoms.
Keywords: COVID-19; Coronavirus; Death; Geriatrics; Intensive care units; Prognosis; Real-time polymerase chain reaction; SARS-CoV-2; Tomography.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick update on the coronavirus situation here.

My mum has recovered now. She didn't end up going to the hospital even though it was up and down. In fact, her lungs are better than they were before getting the infection. She has had trouble walking up the stairs and getting out of breath since 2016, but that's mostly gone away now. She's taking her usual medications, but still got her taking zinc and allicin.

She's been taking Azithromycin since 2016 to deal with repeated lung infections. I wonder if that antibiotic wasn't working and the shortness of breath that she's had for years was caused by an underlying lung infection that didn't go away.

Edited by Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2020 at 4:50 PM, corybroo said:

I went to google and did a search for “fact check great barrington” which turned up the following:

What's the point of it? You can't just go to the page and see who the actual scientists are? I'd take the word of those over the word of some "fact-checker" barely out of a liberal arts community college.

And speaking of politicized bad science and censorship, John Hopkins was just pressured by the Twitter mobs to remove an article by one of their own, because it contradicted the prevailing narrative dogma. But thanks to web.archive.org one can still read it:
 

A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19

"These data analyses suggest that in contrast to most people’s assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.

This comes as a shock to many people. How is it that the data lie so far from our perception? 

To answer that question, Briand shifted her focus to the deaths per causes ranging from 2014 to 2020. There is a sudden increase in deaths in 2020 due to COVID-19. This is no surprise because COVID-19 emerged in the U.S. in early 2020, and thus COVID-19-related deaths increased drastically afterward.

Analysis of deaths per cause in 2018 revealed that the pattern of seasonal increase in the total number of deaths is a result of the rise in deaths by all causes, with the top three being heart disease, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia.

“This is true every year. Every year in the U.S. when we observe the seasonal ups and downs, we have an increase of deaths due to all causes,” Briand pointed out.

When Briand looked at the 2020 data during that seasonal period, COVID-19-related deaths exceeded deaths from heart diseases. This was highly unusual since heart disease has always prevailed as the leading cause of deaths. However, when taking a closer look at the death numbers, she noted something strange. As Briand compared the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to 2018, she noticed that instead of the expected drastic increase across all causes, there was a significant decrease in deaths due to heart disease. Even more surprising, as seen in the graph below, this sudden decline in deaths is observed for all other causes.
...

Throughout the talk, Briand constantly emphasized that although COVID-19 is a serious national and global problem, she also stressed that society should never lose focus of the bigger picture — death in general. 

The death of a loved one, from COVID-19 or from other causes, is always tragic, Briand explained. Each life is equally important and we should be reminded that even during a global pandemic we should not forget about the tragic loss of lives from other causes.

According to Briand, the over-exaggeration of the COVID-19 death number may be due to the constant emphasis on COVID-19-related deaths and the habitual overlooking of deaths by other natural causes in society. "

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ron Put said:

And speaking of politicized bad science and censorship, John Hopkins was just pressured by the Twitter mobs to remove an article by one of their own, because it contradicted the prevailing narrative dogma. But thanks to web.archive.org one can still read 

Here is the statement by the John Hopkins' student newsletter which retracted the article you reference explaining flaws in the analysis in the webinar on which the article was based.

Contrary to the webinar's faulty claim, below is the graph from Our-World-in-Data clearly showing there is a very large spike in weekly all-cause mortality in US in 2020 relative to the last five years attributable to covid deaths adding to the other, usual causes of mortality.

Screenshot_20201202-175834_Chrome.jpg 

Here is a detailed analysis by Snopes of the events surrounding the publication and retraction, including how fringe groups used the faulty data to push the incorrect narrative that lots of deaths that would have normally occurred and been attributed to things like heart disease have been misattributed to covid. 

--Dean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

Contrary to the webinar's faulty claim

Dean, frankly this is just more BS to explain nonsense and justify censorship.  When articles are retracted, they are generally not deleted. Second, the media and the "experts" trotted out by it (the same ones who predicted 2 million deaths in the US and 750,000 in the UK) are picking time-frames favorable to their narrative, and using clearly partisan "fact-checkers" like Snopes (constantly referring to "fringe right-wing" conspirators) to bootstrap their arguments. The core arguments are not addressed by the editorial explanation for the retraction, other than vague nonsense about "misinformation" and they are not addressed by Snopes.

The fact is that reference time-frames matter and so does visual presentation -- your chart above would have a very different impact if it covered two decades and if the Y-axis was not focused on making the 2020 highest point of 78,818 deaths loom over the 2018 highest point of 67,491 deaths -- the difference of about 12,000 deaths is the same as the difference between 2018's highest point and 2016's highest point, yet nobody locked the country down in 2018.  And let's keep in mind that this is in a country where 3 million people die every year.

What exactly is wrong with the main points in the article? What exactly is wrong with the data in these charts from the deleted article, for instance:


607816425_ScreenShot2020-12-02at16_32_24.png.8c3f985c2bc304eea941f5785660eac6.png

931057155_ScreenShot2020-12-02at16_32_55.png.ef25b662f9cc02f336eb069dade891da.png


It is a fact that the number of emergency room visit has dramatically declined (over 40% in some instances) and so has the number of heart attacks, strokes, cancer deaths, and so on.  This is a chart from the CDC:

740181386_ScreenShot2020-12-02at16_44_53.png.3f10c980037d3129489cfb47102bf176.png

If we stop and consider that there are about 650,000 CVD deaths every year in the US, and about 800,000 strokes, 20% of each is a very large number.

There is no reasoned discussion in the US and the rest of the West, where the pandemic has been politicized and anyone who dares to question the prevailing dogma is canceled and deleted. These are dramatic, unprecedented policy decisions, with a dramatic impact on populations and economic structures, yet there is no debate and no discussion of the subject, only what can be seen as relentless propaganda to impose a single narrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is a rather informative comment to the editorial explanation for the deletion of the article, which places the death toll in perspective (I looked quickly at a couple of the claims and they appear correct):

"Consider the following figures- US Total deaths by year per CDC:

2013: 2,596,993
2014: 2,626,418
2015: 2,712,630
2016: 2,744,248
2017: 2,813,503
2018: 2,839,205
2019: 2,855,000
2020: as of 11/14 total deaths= 2,512,880

At present the US is experiencing a 1.12% increase in overall mortality rates for 2020- not good- pandemicky numbers to be sure.

However, last year, 2019, there was also a 1.12% increase. Did we miss a pandemic in 2019?

But wait it’s even "scarier"- 2018 saw a 1.22% increase in mortality rates, 2017 saw a 1.24% increase, 2016 1.27% increase, 2015 1.27% increase, 2014 1.29% increase- all exceeding 2020’s increase in mortality rate- so does this mean we have had pandemics for the last 7 years?

Does this indicate non-stop pandemics every year for the last 7 years and we just weren’t paying attention and didn’t have an 'honest" media to keep us pinned to our beds in a proper state of fear?

And BTW 2013 all the way back to 2009 all showed .09% increases in mortality rates- don’t know where the cutoff is but certainly even these years were “pandemic like” if you feel this year was truly a pandemic.

It isn’t until we go back to the year 2008 that we see a decrease in overall mortality rates in the US. For 20 straight years there were decreases in mortality rates and then in 2009 this changed- since then we have had an increase in mortality rates. Why is that? Could this point to the 2008 economic recession as being the leading indicator rather than some supernatural viral entity?

In reality this year at present seems to be no different in overall mortality rates compared to last year and less of an increase than 5 of the 6 the preceding years. How is this possible during a “pandemic of biblical proportions?”

It's always important to look at the rates (populations are increasing and rates vary) and overall trends to get a clear picture.

It's also been obvious since April that how death certificates are filed have been dramatically altered (first time in history) to give liberal interpretations to "Covid" as being cause of death- and let's not forget that PCR tests at greater than 35 cycles (as is the case in virtually every lab in the US/Europe) produce massive false positives. This article illustrates indeed that past deaths caused by heart disease are now obviously getting lumped into the catch-all "Covid" category.

Oh and BTW the WHO changed its definition of what IS a Pandemic in 2009- might want to look into how and why that was done."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[I won't post the "I-word" because it may be censored . PSST .... it's been around for a long time and ... for humans and animals ... https://www.bi-vetmedica.com/species/cattle/products/ivomec.html]

AKA: Ivomec® (iv***ectin) – Effective dewormer, trusted for more than 35 years

 

Anyway, a doctor from the 200-million-person Indian state, Uuttar Pradesh, posted this on Twitter:

dr a k chaurasia
covid kit from india, distributed by state govt of uttar pradesh (attach)

https://twitter.com/drakchaurasia?lang=en

Eow3hE-VEAArvwT?format=jpg&name=900x900

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note the DOSES of Iver--- .

So if you do have to go to the vet for your dog de-wormer 😉 .... you know how much to get 😉 

(Note that there were some issues with Iver --- doses being confused with their use in cattle and large-animal veterinary doses ).

BOTTOM LINE: "We don't need no steeeeeeeenkin' vaccine." (Translated from Hindu)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, KHashmi317 said:

So if you do have to go to the vet for your dog de-wormer 😉 .... you know how much to get 😉 

BOTTOM LINE: "We don't need no steeeeeeeenkin' vaccine." (Translated from Hindu)

I think people should keep in mind that this advice is coming from someone whose diet includes a large helping of Purina monkey chow.

--Dean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×