Corona Virus Updates Part 6

a reply to: Soloprotocol
That was excellent, I have literally just finished watching it and came on here to post a link, but you beat me to it
So he's an asymptomatic 'survivor' of C19. I wonder how many people will wonder if they might have had it like him, and now start wondering why (if they did) take the jibbyjabby?
Rainbows
Jane

originally posted by: angelchemuel
a reply to: Soloprotocol
That was excellent, I have literally just finished watching it and came on here to post a link, but you beat me to it

So he's an asymptomatic 'survivor' of C19. I wonder how many people will wonder if they might have had it like him, and now start wondering why (if they did) take the jibbyjabby?
Rainbows
Jane

Lovely. What about the fact check thing?

Watched that?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: angelchemuel
a reply to: Soloprotocol
That was excellent, I have literally just finished watching it and came on here to post a link, but you beat me to it

So he's an asymptomatic 'survivor' of C19. I wonder how many people will wonder if they might have had it like him, and now start wondering why (if they did) take the jibbyjabby?
Rainbows
Jane

Lovely. What about the fact check thing?

Watched that?

Watch the video before you comment. Maybe then you won't look stupid.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: angelchemuel
a reply to: Soloprotocol
That was excellent, I have literally just finished watching it and came on here to post a link, but you beat me to it

So he's an asymptomatic 'survivor' of C19. I wonder how many people will wonder if they might have had it like him, and now start wondering why (if they did) take the jibbyjabby?
Rainbows
Jane

Lovely. What about the fact check thing?

Watched that?

Watch the video before you comment. Maybe then you won't look stupid.

It's out there. I've watched it.

Now, come back when you've watched the fact check.

Stupid? Pffft...

originally posted by: McGinty

originally posted by: Albert999
a reply to: vNex92

This guy sounds like a prize c**t. 😒

Lol! So much more concise, yet all the more accurate. Well said!

Btw, well done for saving your friend

Thank you, I'm happy i was able to help him 😊

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

fact checked video is where?
The video from unheard was the real living doctor with his opinion. Curious to see what fact checker could check.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

I find it best to just ignore and skip past his posts; probably a shill, or bot of some description - who/what else would link the tptb’s own tannoy of propaganda the bbc as a paragon of truth and fact? It’s farcical!

He turns up, throws a grenade into the thread - something obviously dumb, like telling folk to check there facts with the bbc and then please have a conversation with him based on their agenda. Before you know it we’re not talking about the subject at hand, but arguing with his shenanigans instead.

Will watch the vid tmw - thanks for posting it.

originally posted by: McGinty
a reply to: Soloprotocol

I find it best to just ignore and skip past his posts; probably a shill, or bot of some description - who/what else would link the tptb’s own tannoy of propaganda the bbc as a paragon of truth and fact? It’s farcical!

Will watch the vid tmw - thanks for posting it.

Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19: A Citywide, Prospective, Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching

Results: Of the 223,128 citizens of Itajaí considered for the study, a total of 159,561 subjects were included in the analysis: 113,845 (71.3%) regular ivermectin users and 45,716 (23.3%) non-users. Of these, 4,311 ivermectin users were infected, among which 4,197 were from the city of Itajaí (3.7% infection rate), and 3,034 non-users (from Itajaí) were infected (6.6% infection rate), with a 44% reduction in COVID-19 infection rate (risk ratio [RR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.53-0.58; p < 0.0001). Using PSM, two cohorts of 3,034 subjects suffering from COVID-19 infection were compared. The regular use of ivermectin led to a 68% reduction in COVID-19 mortality (25 [0.8%] versus 79 [2.6%] among ivermectin non-users; RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.20-0.49; p < 0.0001). When adjusted for residual variables, reduction in mortality rate was 70% (RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.19-0.46; p < 0.0001). There was a 56% reduction in hospitalization rate (44 versus 99 hospitalizations among ivermectin users and non-users, respectively; RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.31-0.63; p < 0.0001). After adjustment for residual variables, reduction in hospitalization rate was 67% (RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 023-0.66; p < 0.0001).

Conclusion: In this large PSM study, regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates.

It is a shame a 67% reduction in hospitalization wasn't enough to warrant using in the western world.
Think of all the extra live people we could have jabbed oh wait if we didn't have a high enough death rate we would be able to force everyone to be jabbed.

originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

fact checked video is where?
The video from unheard was the real living doctor with his opinion. Curious to see what fact checker could check.

Well, watch it then.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: McGinty
a reply to: Soloprotocol

I find it best to just ignore and skip past his posts; probably a shill, or bot of some description - who/what else would link the tptb’s own tannoy of propaganda the bbc as a paragon of truth and fact? It’s farcical!

Will watch the vid tmw - thanks for posting it.

Yeah, 'go mods'. Please ask him why he didn't provide a link for his 'fact check' for the interview....

originally posted by: angelchemuel

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: McGinty
a reply to: Soloprotocol

I find it best to just ignore and skip past his posts; probably a shill, or bot of some description - who/what else would link the tptb’s own tannoy of propaganda the bbc as a paragon of truth and fact? It’s farcical!

Will watch the vid tmw - thanks for posting it.

Yeah, 'go mods'. Please ask him why he didn't provide a link for his 'fact check' for the interview....

This one? Hello?


BBC News - Covid: Fact-checking the doctor who challenged the health secretary
www.bbc.co.uk...

a reply to: Oldcarpy2
Yay!
See, you can do it

.... oh look...the BBC!

found the bbc fact checked looked at the studies and they have studies that have lower numbers of participants then any ivermectin study. Use self test and user input to record and report data as fact. Plus published in the lancet which has a history of publishing bogus papers that fit the Pharma narrative.

Considering 10 million people go for a test every week and less that 10% are positive you can't go on "feelings" to detect a sars-cov-2 infection.

The biggest point I think the doctor made was that the vaccine wane so fast the to retain optimal status you would need to jab many times a year. The risks of the bodies immune system damage to this assault is to high.

There has not been any research on natural immunity with therapeutics and improvements in Vitamin deficiencies.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

you didn't post a fact checked video you posted a bbc article with incorrect conclusions based on extremely short data points. December 12 Neil Ferguson was Omicron was worse then delta -- oops -- The fact checked on a study of contacts with out finding out if the contacts had been like the doctor an Asymptotic case.

So no base data, no medical supervision of testing and mention of the health of the contacts. Ferguson pull a scary number out of his rear end prediction.

Question remains is the doctor right -Using Vaccines and antibody levels as the measure of protection - boosters of NHS staff would be required more frequent than the general public?

a reply to: puzzled2

Indeed, the bbc fact check scam isn’t worth th paper it’s not written on, using that as a source is imho worst than using bitchute as proof of anything, since the initials, ‘BBC’ carry some weight with the less informed.

Japan extends entry ban on non-resident foreigners until end of February.

Well, that's my update.
Sorry folks, have to wait if you want to come here.
Tourism from overseas in one way is a blessing, why... well, now the locals can enjoy some relaxation from the non-demanding Japanese out of town tourist. I went to Okinawa and without 100000 foreigner tourist there, it was like a dead zone. Even a decent hotel was only 36 bucks a night with buffet breakfast.

japantoday.com...

Ontario changing their narrative or ?

We know roughly 45 percent of admissions to hospital are incidental to being diagnosed with COVID-19

And after 2 years of forced lockdowns fines and mandate vaccination they have decide to clarify the numbers.

“We just recently met with the chief coroner’s office,” Moore said. “We’ll be sending memos out to hospital partners to ensure that death is documented appropriately, if it’s associated with or caused by COVID-19, to further clarify for the public the cause of death.”

Ontario to Change COVID Death Reporting in Bid to Identify Possible Incidental Cases:

Bit late but suppose it is better than never.

What is this the WHO recommending a theraputic for hunder a 199 bucks a dose???

A sign of the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland, on April 24, 2020. (Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images)
A sign of the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland, on April 24, 2020. (Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images)
PUBLIC HEALTH INFORMATION
WHO Recommends 2 New Drugs as COVID-19 Treatments
By Mimi Nguyen Ly January 15, 2022 Updated: January 15, 2022 biggersmaller Print
The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended two new drugs to treat COVID-19—baricitinib and sotrovimab.

Baricitinib, an oral drug, is “strongly recommended” for people with severe or critical COVID-19, to be given with cortico steroids, the WHO announced.

source

Wonder what viral preventions mechanism the rheumatoid arthritis medicine has. Was that a reason Ivermectin and HCQ couldn't be considered because there was no viral prevention mechanism?