COVID-19 ... how we cope :)

[Sid Belzberg]

Ivermectin

A recent clinical trial showed that Ivermectin, an alternative treatment for COVID-19, does not effectively alleviate the disease. The study, which compared more than 1,300 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either Ivermectin or a placebo, effectively ruled out the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, the study’s authors said.

Ivermectin does not reduce COVID-19 hospitalization risk.

Subscribers Only

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/worl...20be%20endemic

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

Hi Bob,
Sadly, the pharma industry has done a number of "designed to fall studies" for cheap repurposed drugs in order to promote their program of all roads lead to expensive and profitable mass vaccination only. The most infamous was "Mehra et al" which actually had to be retracted from both the NEJM and the Lancet as it was based on data that literally did not exist. Data literally was made up out of thin air that was debunked by social media posts from all over the world
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...180-6/fulltext

The study above was sponsored by Gilead, on manufacturers of s toxic and useless drug called Remedeseivir that Dr. Fraudsci on no basis declared "the standard of care" even though the drug's side effects include acute Kidney failure in a large percentage of those that take it (initially it was a failed ebola drug for this reason.).

Here in this study, you mention https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869 the fraud is less blatant but fraud nonetheless. here are the major issues with the study. I found an article that gave this analysis of the data.


1) Young and healthy people were not included in the study and had to have at least one of the severe risk factors for disease

• Age over 50
• Hypertension requiring medical therapy
• Diabetes mellitus
• Cardiovascular disease
• Lung disease
• Smoking
• Obesity
• Organ transplantation
• Chronic kidney disease (stage IV) or receipt of dialysis
• Immunosuppressive therapy (receipt of ≥10 mg of prednisone or equivalent daily)
• Diagnosis of cancer within the previous 6 months
• Receipt of chemotherapy for cancer.

2) The group included both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals The percentage of vaccinated participants in each group was not specified. Note that by choosing not to identify vaccination status as a confounding variable the authors are implying that vaccines are playing no role in preventing hospitalization.

3)Most noteworthy the authors wrote that the majority of the Placebo recipents ended up being hospitalized indicating that Ivermectin showed a benefit, exactly the opposite conclusion of the paper.

“100 patients (14.7%) in the ivermectin group had a primary-outcome event (composite of hospitalization due to the progression of COVID-19 or an emergency department visit of >6 hours that was due to clinical worsening of COVID-19), as compared with 111 (16.3%) in the placebo group

However, these data were not statistically significant given the size of the study.
This is how the authors were able to conclude there was no benefit to ivermectin use in preventing hospitalization in high-risk patients in their study.

4) Only 288 of 679 participants randomized to receiving the placebo reported 100% adherence to the study protocol. Nearly 400 didn’t. 391 people who didn’t take the placebo but did something else were included in two of the three calculations of ivermectin efficacy anyway.” Probably the placebo recipients knew the difference between Ivermectin and the placebo and went out and took ivermectin. In otherwords it was not a true blinded study.

5) Rather than pounding the final nail in the coffin around ivermectin’s utility in treating COVID, the NEJM study raises more questions.

• What would the effect have been if a higher dose shown to be effective were administered?
• What would be the benefit of this medicine in patients with no risk factors?
• How statistically significant would the results have been if more participants were enrolled?
• Why weren’t more participants enrolled as the study progressed given the emerging benefit of the drug and the absence of adverse events?
• Why did the investigators define a primary outcome with such different real-world implications (ER visits vs hospitalizations)?
• With less than 50% of the placebo arm adhering to the study protocol, why were their outcomes included in the analysis?
• What effect did vaccination status have on outcome? If this is the primary means endorsed to prevent hospitalization, why wasn’t vaccination status mentioned as a confounder?
• Did the investigators choose to limit the study as it became clear that an Ivermectin benefit would be too big to ignore?

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/d...8-a703c029bc06

Given these obvious issues with the study, it is becoming even more clear where the real story is: Neither The Globe and Mail, The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times are willing to pursue startling details around how corporate interests are corrupting scientific opinion as reported

Instead, these iconic journals chose to report on a scientific study on or prior to the day of publication using misleading headlines backed up by flimsy investigations conducted by journalists with no capacity to dissect the analysis or data.

Here’s a bigger question: Are they incompetent, or complicit, too? Consider this article that concludes that these large pharma sponsored publications cherrypick studies that are negative and ignore the vast majority of studies that are positive https://childrenshealthdefense.org/d...ic-ivermectin/

https://ivmmeta.com

[Peter McKillop]

......

The study above was sponsored by Gilead, on manufacturers of s toxic and useless drug called Remedeseivir that Dr. Fraudsci on no basis declared "the standard of care" even though the drug's side effects include acute Kidney failure in a large percentage of those that take it (initially it was a failed ebola drug for this reason.).

.......

Haven't bothered to count them but on quite a few occasions over the last two years you've knocked Fauci for the above comments on remdesivir. Those comments were made on April 29, 2020, at a time when everyone was on the learning curve and were based on an initial release of info from a Gilead study. Should Fauci have kept his mouth shut until all the Gilead info was publicly available rather than raising hope that might not prove justified? Yeah, maybe. But then again, the NIH, as recently as six weeks ago, was still recommending use of remdesivir as one tool in the anti-covid arsenal. As with so many of the things you post, who are we to believe; the people with the PhD's and experience, or you?



"Speaking to reporters from the White House, Fauci said he was told data from the trial showed a "clear-cut positive effect in diminishing time to recover.""

https://www-cnbc-com.cdn.ampproject....good-news.html

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelin...py/remdesivir/

[Sid Belzberg]

Haven't bothered to count them but on quite a few occasions over the last two years you've knocked Fauci for the above comments on remdesivir. Those comments were made on April 29, 2020, at a time when everyone was on the learning curve and were based on an initial release of info from a Gilead study. Should Fauci have kept his mouth shut until all the Gilead info was publicly available rather than raising hope that might not prove justified? Yeah, maybe. But then again, the NIH, as recently as six weeks ago, was still recommending use of remdesivir as one tool in the anti-covid arsenal. As with so many of the things you post, who are we to believe; the people with the PhD's and experience, or you?



"Speaking to reporters from the White House, Fauci said he was told data from the trial showed a "clear-cut positive effect in diminishing time to recover.""

https://www-cnbc-com.cdn.ampproject....good-news.html

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelin...py/remdesivir/

Those comments were made on April 29, 2020, at a time when everyone was on the learning curve and were based on an initial release of info from a Gilead study

This comment is incorrect. Dr. Fraudsci was not on a "learning curve" at all. He did not need the Gilead study to know that it was a toxic and useless drug. Dr. Fauci originally tested this as an Ebola drug that was an utter disaster more than half the recipients in the ebola trial died of Kidney failure and the trial had to be stopped. Furthermore, another study in China in April at the same time had already shown that the drug was utterly useless and highly toxic and still is. All of this by the way was posted on the NIH website in April 2020.

But then again, the NIH, as recently as six weeks ago, was still recommending use of Remdesivir as one tool in the anti-covid arsenal

The NIH group that recommended Remdesevir all were paid large sums of money by Gilead to do so.

As with so many of the things you post, who are we to believe; the people with the PhD's and experience, or you?

Everything I say I base on research done by people more qualified than me.

"In this cohort study of US veterans hospitalized with COVID-19, remdesivir treatment was not associated with improved survival but was associated with longer hospital stays. Routine use of remdesivir may be associated with increased use of hospital beds while not being associated with improvements in survival."

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2781959

The safety profile of this failed Ebola drug is horrific and has been known for many years to cause organ failure (Kidneys) in many patients and during the Ebola trials was in fact withdrawn for consideration due to > 50% of the patients dying from organ failure of this drug.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1910993

Remdesevir as a “standard of care” as coronated by Dr. Fauci in April 2020 on the basis of a study where the primary endpoints were changed from mortality benefit to reduced stay in hospital that arguably was statistically insignificant.


https://clinicaltrials.gov/ProvidedD...5/Prot_001.pdf

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007764


What the public didn’t hear about the NIH remdesivir trial

This placebo-controlled Chinese study showed that Remdesevir is utterly ineffective in keeping hospitalized patients alive or even reducing the duration of hospitalizations.



Remdesevir did not even reduce the presence of the virus in the blood. Worst of all the Chinese study confirmed Remdesevir’s deadly toxicity. Remdesevir caused serious injuries in 12% of the patients verus 5 percent in the placebo group.


https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...022-9/fulltext

"With in vitro and animal evidence suggesting remdesivir is optimally suited for viral prophylaxis or immediately following viral inoculation, why would there have been any reason to expect a different outcome in humans, where SARS-CoV-2 has a median incubation period of 4 days?"
With in vitro and animal evidence suggesting remdesivir is optimally suited for viral prophylaxis or immediately following viral inoculation, why would there have been any reason to expect a different outcome in humans, where SARS-CoV-2 has a median incubation period of 4 days?"

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...021-3/fulltext


Of the 1,000,000+ dead Americans how many do you think were

1) Patients with COVID + designation where the primary cause of death was something else but despite that the primary cause of death was incorrectly labeled as COVID? According to the CDC just 6% of these patients in 2020 actually died of COVID as a primary cause.

2) How many of these patients died from maltreatment? Namely toxic Remdesevir?



So organs fail caused by Remdesevir---> lungs take on water--->misdiagnosed as" viral pneumonia"----> ventilation via intubation 97.8% of patients over age 65 die from this.


This is a pandemic of malpractice, not the “Sarscov2” virus . Here is protocol where the average hospital mortality at 2 hospital centers in over 300 patients treated is 5.1%, which represents more than a 75% absolute risk reduction in mortality compared to the average published hospital mortality of 22.9% among COVID-19 patient

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-c...ne-Dec2020.pdf
https://covid19criticalcare.com/covi...plus-protocol/

As with so many of the things you post, who are we to believe; the people with the PhD's and experience, or you?

I could not give a damn who you believe. If you want to believe that this is about health and not money then knock yourself out. When you get COVID follow the NIH or Health Canada guidelines and do nothing until you are blue in the face go to the emergency where your chances of survival with the health Canada protocol for your age group is low, you will be plowed with toxic Remdesevir put on inappropriate ventilation via intubation with about 97.8% of people over 65 dying with this wonderful protocol. The govt will be very pleased to have one less person to pay Social Security for.
You know...the WEF Great Reset Agenda that our beloved Trudeau is a member of and Christy Freeman is the deputy director of that proposes to depopulate the world of "useless eaters" like you and me.

[Bob Gillanders]

As with so many of the things you post, who are we to believe; the people with the PhD's and experience, or you?

I stopped reading Sid's posts some time ago. What's the point?
I was happy to start unmasking almost 2 weeks ago now with the blessing of the authorities.
They may have not got everything correct, but the directives did follow a pattern consistent with the best science at the time.

I trust there will be lots of post mortem's studies and hopefully we can better prepare for the next pandemic.

If Sid wants to keep trying to convince us of his narrative, so be it. But why bother arguing with him.
Go out and enjoy the fresh air.

[Pargat Perrer]

I could not give a damn who you believe. If you want to believe that this is about health and not money then knock yourself out. When you get COVID follow the NIH or Health Canada guidelines and do nothing until you are blue in the face go to the emergency where your chances of survival with the health Canada protocol for your age group is low, you will be plowed with toxic Remdesevir put on inappropriate ventilation via intubation with about 97.8% of people over 65 dying with this wonderful protocol. The govt will be very pleased to have one less person to pay Social Security for.
You know...the WEF Great Reset Agenda that our beloved Trudeau is a member of and Christy Freeman is the deputy director of that proposes to depopulate the world of "useless eaters" like you and me.

I think one thing Sid posted about still needs and deserves consideration. And this is on one major basis: the mRNA vaccines are NOT vaccines. They are experimental gene therapies. So for me, I'm going to call them "mRNA jabs" rather than "Covid vaccines". And if anyone insists on calling them vaccines, I will consider them uneducated.

Now the thing Sid posted was that over the next few years, we are possibly going to see many people who had the mRNA jabs will develop serious health issues due to their capillaries being clogged with spike proteins. This to me is a valid possibility. The question is really only HOW MANY such people will develop the problems. Since I've had 2 of these jabs, I am of course hoping i am not one of them.

And the reason I post this right now, since we are talking about Sid and his posts, is that this came out in the non-mainstream news today, and it seems to be accurate:

https://newspunch.com/dozens-of-tenn...wed-to-ask-why

This could be the start of something.... something that might end up terrifying us all much more than covid itself. Or it might not, the verdict is still out.

[Sid Belzberg]

I think one thing Sid posted about still needs and deserves consideration. And this is on one major basis: the mRNA vaccines are NOT vaccines. They are experimental gene therapies. So for me, I'm going to call them "mRNA jabs" rather than "Covid vaccines". And if anyone insists on calling them vaccines, I will consider them uneducated.

Now the thing Sid posted was that over the next few years, we are possibly going to see many people who had the mRNA jabs will develop serious health issues due to their capillaries being clogged with spike proteins. This to me is a valid possibility. The question is really only HOW MANY such people will develop the problems. Since I've had 2 of these jabs, I am of course hoping i am not one of them.

And the reason I post this right now, since we are talking about Sid and his posts, is that this came out in the non-mainstream news today, and it seems to be accurate:

https://newspunch.com/dozens-of-tenn...wed-to-ask-why

This could be the start of something.... something that might end up terrifying us all much more than covid itself. Or it might not, the verdict is still out.

Or it might not, the verdict is still out.

Paragat here is an interesting experiment that was done on mice. Half were injected the mRNA inoculation directly into muscle tissue and the other half were injected directly into the bloodstream intravenously. Here is what I posted to a group of COVID doctors and scientists that I have done volunteer research for. By the way, Walter Chestnut who I refer to in the post is a USCF ranked class A chess player and arbitrator and an amateur scientist par excellence who published an article with Noble Prize Laureate the late Dr. Luc Montagnier last year on how COVID induces aging.


"Recently my friend Walter Chesnut came across this paper:
'Intravenous injection of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine can induce acute myopericarditis in mouse model"

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34406358/

Noteworthy was that hearts in the mRNA intravenously inoculated group of mice were significantly calcified but even on nonintravenous injections in the muscle only we also see damage but not as severe.





Walter suggested that "Cellular Senescence, Decreased Autophagy and most importantly EXTRACELLULAR VESICLES contribute to Vascular Calcification in Aging. These are exactly the mechanisms that the Spike Protein uses and/or induces.
This may be the underlying mechanism to all the Post COVID and Post Spike Protein pathologies, including Long COVID. The vasculature may be aged fifty years by the Spike Protein."

What do you think?"

Dr. McCullough, a world-renowned cardiologist commented

"Sid
Excellent scholarship. Thanks."
pmc


This calcification occurred literally within hours of the intravenous injection in the mice. Here is the scary part. When an inoculation is administered to a person it is done on the Deltoid muscle (upper arm muscle} it is meant to only go into the muscle and then drain into the lymph nodes and then antibodies are induced and the spike proteins go nowhere and eventually are mopped up by the immune system
However, in about 1 in a thousand inoculations, the needle hits a blood vessel and the spike protein goes into many organs causing a massive autoimmune response and a whole chain of complex biochemical reactions that eventually leads to the horrible damage above. The procedure normally is to pull the plunger out (aspirate) and see if any blood is there before injecting the dose. inexplicably the WHO guidelines and WHO compliant health agencies across the world insist nurses not aspirate.
Here is an interesting analysis by Dr. John Campbell who has a Doctorate in nursing regarding aspirating when administering shots.

Bottom line there is no doubt at all that these shots cause heart damage, myocarditis etc and assuming 1 in a thousand shots hit a blood vessel instead of the muscle that is probably around 4,500,0000 with a very short life expectancy like those poor athletes you refer to. Why would the health authorities not allow aspirating when administering a shot? Dr. Campbell in this video certainly is very upset about this.

By the way, Dr. Campbell was pro these shots until these results from Pfizer as a result of a court order were released that they wanted to keep secret for 75 years. Here is his reaction in the video.

So many athletes are dying from heart damage myocarditis etc with acute problems after inoculation and sadly we are also seeing wide spread ADE (Antibody-Dependent Enhancement Problems) that I will explain in another post.

Here is a good deep dive into vaccine complications that shows the scope and breadth of the problem.

https://iceni.substack.com/p/covid-1...ii-vaccine?s=r

[Peter McKillop]

.....

And the reason I post this right now, since we are talking about Sid and his posts, is that this came out in the non-mainstream news today, and it seems to be accurate:

https://newspunch.com/dozens-of-tenn...wed-to-ask-why

This could be the start of something.... something that might end up terrifying us all much more than covid itself. Or it might not, the verdict is still out.

"A 2017 BuzzFeed report identified NewsPunch as being the second-largest source of popular fake stories spread on Facebook that year,^[6] and a June 2018 Poynter analysis identified NewsPunch as being debunked over 80 times in 2017 and 2018 by Poynter-accredited factcheckers such as Snopes, FactCheck.org, PolitiFact, and the Associated Press."^[7]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewsPunch

[Sid Belzberg]

"A 2017 BuzzFeed report identified NewsPunch as being the second-largest source of popular fake stories spread on Facebook that year,^[6] and a June 2018 Poynter analysis identified NewsPunch as being debunked over 80 times in 2017 and 2018 by Poynter-accredited factcheckers such as Snopes, FactCheck.org, PolitiFact, and the Associated Press."^[7]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewsPunch

https://peckford42.wordpress.com/202...ws-initiative/

[Aris Marghetis]

I was right up front for Nina Hagen at the Masonic Temple in Toronto, I had my hands on her feedback monitors and she was expectorating all over me.

Bruce Springsteen slapped my hand (old school "gimme 5") in the 6th row on the floor at the old Montreal Forum.

[Pargat Perrer]

"A 2017 BuzzFeed report identified NewsPunch as being the second-largest source of popular fake stories spread on Facebook that year,^[6] and a June 2018 Poynter analysis identified NewsPunch as being debunked over 80 times in 2017 and 2018 by Poynter-accredited factcheckers such as Snopes, FactCheck.org, PolitiFact, and the Associated Press."^[7]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewsPunch

That may well be, Peter. I can however attest (since I am a tennis fan and was watching lots of the early-stage matches from the Miami Open event on a satellite channel) is that these withdrawals of players with strange medical symptoms did in fact occur.

What it means, I don't know, but I do find it strange. Ever since Sid posted about spike proteins getting into capillaries after mRNA injection, I have been alert for any news of athletes having unexpected health issues, since they are almost all jabbed and are putting themselves through strenuous exercise.

[Sid Belzberg]

That may well be, Peter. I can however attest (since I am a tennis fan and was watching lots of the early-stage matches from the Miami Open event on a satellite channel) is that these withdrawals of players with strange medical symptoms did in fact occur.

What it means, I don't know, but I do find it strange. Ever since Sid posted about spike proteins getting into capillaries after mRNA injection, I have been alert for any news of athletes having unexpected health issues, since they are almost all jabbed and are putting themselves through strenuous exercise.

Even MSM acknowledges it
https://nz.news.yahoo.com/tennis-202...004007552.html

Sudden Heart attacks among top athletes are now commonplace in the news in all kinds of sports. This has never happened before.
When is the last time you have ever heard of such a thing? What do you think changed?

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/new...homas-23514808

https://thelibertydaily.com/buried-bombshell-tennis-world-rocked-as-fifteen-fully-vaccinated-players-unable-to-finish-miami-open/

[Peter McKillop]

That may well be, Peter. I can however attest (since I am a tennis fan and was watching lots of the early-stage matches from the Miami Open event on a satellite channel) is that these withdrawals of players with strange medical symptoms did in fact occur.

What it means, I don't know, but I do find it strange. Ever since Sid posted about spike proteins getting into capillaries after mRNA injection, I have been alert for any news of athletes having unexpected health issues, since they are almost all jabbed and are putting themselves through strenuous exercise.

And you and Sid may well be right about this. But how does the average person verify? I thought, check ESPN, surely America's number one sports site will have coverage of something that is potentially so very important for all of us. Couldn't find a mention of it. So what gives?

[Peter McKillop]

Even MSM acknowledges it
https://nz.news.yahoo.com/tennis-202...004007552.html

Sudden Heart attacks among top athletes are now commonplace in the news in all kinds of sports. This has never happened before.
When is the last time you have ever heard of such a thing? What do you think changed?

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/new...homas-23514808

https://thelibertydaily.com/buried-bombshell-tennis-world-rocked-as-fifteen-fully-vaccinated-players-unable-to-finish-miami-open/

"Miami Open Carnage??" And yet ESPN has nothing about this carnage?

[Hans Jung]

South Africa is the 19th country to go over 100,000 deaths.

[Sid Belzberg]

"Miami Open Carnage??" And yet ESPN has nothing about this carnage?

What? The Yahoo link I posted is not mainstream enough for you?