Archive for the ‘Treatment’ Category

Paxlovid Rebound Strikes Again

http://

The Kim Iversen Show

Aug. 1, 2022

Biden Pushes More Pills and Shots Despite Rebounds

There’s no data on Paxlovid on those who have had COVID shots.  Fauci also suffered a rebound case, which was worse than his first go around.

________________

https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions

What’s Really Driving COVID ‘Rebound’ After Paxlovid?

— There’s only one way to find out
A photo of the packaging and blisterpack of Paxlovid.

In the early days of the pandemic there was an understandable rush to define and optimally treat COVID-19. Anecdotal evidence and the opinions of eminent scientists and non-scientists overwhelmed social and mainstream media platforms only to eventually be overruled by the results of careful, scientific analyses and well-designed clinical trials. Now, more than 2 years into the pandemic, we must return to the standard of careful and thorough analyses for all interventions and treatments.

The debate about “COVID-19 rebound” after nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) treatment is one of these timely areas warranting further investigation. Continuing down the current path of uncertainty has consequences for how and by whom this antiviral should be used. However, by applying lessons learned from the early days of the pandemic — including acknowledging the importance of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) — we can avoid repeating the same mistakes. To do this, it is necessary to start by defining the question, identifying current knowledge gaps, and only then can one propose scientific solutions to bring a rapid resolution to the COVID-19 rebound controversy.  (See link for article)

_________________

**Comment**

Aside from the ever-mounting cases of Paxlovid rebound, Drs. Marik and Kory have been shouting from the rooftops about the dangers of taking Paxlovid. Said Dr. Kory in another recent Op-Ed:

“The problems with Paxlovid are no secret. FDA granted Pfizer emergency use authorization for the drug after a single trial with questionable results. The medicine has many contraindications, meaning it can’t be taken by someone who simultaneously would be taking certain anti-depressants, anti-seizure, anti-psychotic, cholesterol, or blood pressure medications. Furthermore, many Americans cannot take Paxlovid, given that nearly half of adults have cardiovascular disease.

“Consider the Food and Drug Administration’s recent decision allowing pharmacists to play doctor and prescribe Pfizer’s anti-viral treatment Paxlovid. No pharmacist could ever safely dispense a novel medicine with an unprecedented amount of drug interactions without in-depth knowledge of the severity of the patient’s medical problems or the critical necessity of each of their other medicines.

“Biden’s policy of a toxic jab in every arm and a pricey pill in every mouth needs an overhaul.”

Early treatment works. The FLCCC Protocols work. And hundreds of thousands are alive today to prove it.

But rather than take a cheap, effective, safe drug (ivermectin among others) – politicians continue to push expensive injections and medicines that not only don’t work, but are dangerous.

Public Health Vaccine & Treatment Fraud

https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/how-fauci-and-grady-lowered-the-standards

How Fauci and Grady Degraded the Standards of Ethical Requirements for Clinical Research in the US Compared to the Rest of the World

In reading Nuremberg, The Belmont Report, and now the Helsinki Declaration, I can say that up to 2020, US had far lower ethical standards for human subjects research than WMA. Now? None.

Excerpts:

Both WHO and the US HHS suffer from a form of ethical blindness when it comes to vaccine research. Foregoing long-term vaccine safety studies in favor of retrospective analysis of real-world data, these agencies fail to recognize that post-marketing (and post-EUA) studies are de facto uncontrolled, non-randomized prospective clinical trials conducted without proper consenting procedures.

If you’ve read the Nuremberg Code, the Belmont Report, and the Declaration of Helsinki, you’d know that protections are supposed to be in place not for some people undergoing some clinical studies, but instead are considered to be required to be in place for all people undergoing any clinical studies.

Where the US had departed (prior to 2020) from the rest of the countries that backed Helsinki (WMA) and participated in its updates included, according to Kimmelman et al. (2009) included:

  • Disclosure of conflict of interest
  • Public disclosure of study design
  • Benefit for populations in which research is conducted (beneficence)
  • Reporting of accurate results and publication of negative findings
  • Access to treatment after research has been conducted
  • Restriction of use of placebo in a control group where effective alternative treatment is available

The departure formally came when issues related to HIV clinical trials run in less wealthy countries seemed to depart from Helsinki standards. Rather than work to reconcile differences with Helsinki, US companies, and the US government came up with a different international standard called “Good clinical practice” – standards in place in the EU (codified as Directive 2001/20/EC), and the US (enforced as policy by NIH), all backed by Pharma.

The departure of the US and the EU from the countries that continue to abide by Helsinki serves to empower those running clinical trials at the expense of those individuals taking on the risk of new drugs and vaccines – both in the risk of poor efficacy and in the risk of potential safety issues.

Well, it turns out that Fauci was at the forefront of the war on ethical research, arguing against the requirement of the use of placebos in HIV drug trials in Africa.

Fauci’s insistence on no placebo arm in HIV drug trials in Africa is an example of bluster and posturing on morality to hide the negative consequences (harm) of the drug AZT. We’ve seen this bluster and posturing all along with COVID-19 vaccines, and Fauci’s denial of the efficacy of early treatment. He rolls over so many of the principles of medical research ethics – and ethics of care – those that were meant to be sacrosanct to protect the interests and well-being of individuals, as outlined in Nuremberg, Helsinki, and the Belmont Report.

Medical hubris has been the modus operandi of Fauci well before COVID-19.

It’s time to revisit why and how it came about that the pharmaceutical companies are able to write the rules by which they conduct clinical research.

(See link for article)

__________________

Please see Jeremy R. Hammond’s antidote to government and mainstream media’s disinformation:

__________________

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fda-moderna-bypass-covid-vaccine-safety-standards-documents/

FDA Colluded With Moderna to Bypass COVID Vaccine Safety Standards, Documents Reveal

According to Alexandra Latypova, an ex-pharmaceutical industry executive, documents obtained from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine suggest the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Moderna colluded to bypass regulatory and scientific standards used to ensure products are safe.

Excerpts:

After analyzing 699 pages of studies and test results “supposedly used by the FDA to clear Moderna’s mRNA platform-based mRNA-1273, or Spikevax,” Latypova told The Defender she believes U.S. health agencies are lying to the public on behalf of vaccine manufacturers.

“It is evident that the FDA and NIH [National Institutes of Health] colluded with Moderna to subvert the regulatory and scientific standards of drug safety testing,” Latypova said.

“They accepted fraudulent test designs, substitutions of test articles, glaring omissions and whitewashing of serious signs of health damage by the product, then lied to the public on behalf of the manufacturers.”

(See link for article)

_________________

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/biden-pharma-fda-officials-covid-booster-timeline

Biden, Pharma Pressured Top FDA Officials to Approve Booster Timeline, Emails Reveal

Judicial Watch today announced it received 112 pages from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that show top officials being pressured by “companies and for that matter the administration, who try to impose timelines [sic] that make no sense.”

Excerpts:

The records were produced to Judicial Watch in response to a February Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) that was filed after HHS failed to respond to a Sept. 3, 2021, FOIA request for records of communication from the former director and deputy director of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review, Dr. Marion Gruber and Dr. Philip Krause, respectively (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (No. 1:22-cv-00292)).

Drs. Gruber and Krause reportedly resigned during the White House’s push to approve the COVID-19 vaccine “booster shots.”

(See link for article)

The FOIA requests and lawsuits uncover a substantial amount of info on many COVID issues including a FBI inquiry, NIAD’s money and grants to EcoHealth Alliance and Wuhan for bat coronavirus research, Fauci emails citing ties between Wuhan and EcoHealth, Gates’ involvement with the Chinese government, HHS records showing a grant application for “gain of function” research on bat RNA, viruses, and genetic manipulation of SARSr-CoV WIV1 strain, HHS records showing the Pfizer lipid nanoparticles were found in the liver, adrenal glands, spleen, and ovaries of test animals 8-48 hours after injection, safety lapses at U.S. biosafety labs, and HHS records showing NIH officials tailored confidentiality forms to China’s terms.

_________________

HFDF ANNOUNCES LEGAL ACTIONS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH DAILYCLOUT

Leslie Manookian, HFDF President, has partnered with Dr. Naomi Wolf, DailyClout CEO, to hold the FDA accountable for its unscrupulous and unlawful approval of remdesivir for all patients, and COVID injections for young children.

COVID Risks May Be Heightened by History of Lyme Disease

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20220717/COVID-19-risks-may-be-heightened-by-history-of-Lyme-disease

COVID-19 risks may be heightened by history of Lyme disease

In a recent study published on the preprint server Research Square*, researchers report that individuals with a history of Borrelia infection, otherwise known as Lyme disease, caused by tick bites are at a higher risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Study: Correlation between COVID-19 severity and previous exposure of patients to Borrelia spp. Image Credit: Kateryna Kon / Shutterstock.com

(See link for article)

__________________

SUMMARY:

  • Serological testing is not sufficient to differentiate between recent and past infections because antibodies persist in the blood – even after treatment.  What the article doesn’t say is that THIS, RIGHT HERE, is why current CDC 2-tiered testing should never be used solely to diagnose patients and why doctors need to be educated to make correct clinical judgments. 
  • What started the whole ball of wax is a case report of a patient infected with Lyme who was unsuccessfully treated with one round of antibiotics and who then got COVID.  The patient’s Lyme was suppressed (lower IgG test) due to the anti-COVID meds (umifenovir, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and ceftriaxone).
  • The study included:
    • 31 severely ill & hospitalized patients who were either required non-invasive or invasive ventilation.
    • 28 COVID positive patients who had either mild or asymptomatic cases who were either treated at home or unaware of infection.
    • 28 seronegative controls
  • Serum samples were collected for COVID and Borrelia infections
    • A multi-antigen microblot-array utilizing 19 antigens revealed Lyme in all hospitalized COVID patients. 
    • Of the 28 mild or asymptomatic patients, 19 had Lyme, whereas in the control group of 28, 8 had Lyme.
    • Severe COVID patients also had significantly higher levels of antibodies targeting Anaplasma.
  • Regarding seropositivity for IgM antibodies (1st antibodies to show up after infection that stay for a short period of time):
    • 24 of the 31 hospitalized patients had Lyme antibodies
    • 13 of the 28 mild/asymptomatic patients had Lyme antibodies
    • 15 of the 28 in the control group had Lyme antibodies
  • Risk of COVID-related hospitalizations increased with each positive IgG (antibodies produced later on in infection and can remain after infection resolves. Having high IgG can be indicative of chronic Lyme), but was not observed for IgM.
  • Post-hoc analysis of selected antigens (Osp proteins, p41, and VlsE) was also
    included; multivariate analysis showed that odds of hospitalization increased with increasing levels of:
    • IgG antibodies targeting OspB, OspC B. burgdorferi sensu stricto, and OspC
      B. spielmanii
    • For IgM antibodies, the same association was observed for antibodies targeting OspC B. spielmanii and OspE
  • Interestingly, the authors state that they observed in many patients antibodies targeting different species (e.g. B. burgdorferi sensu stricto, and at the same time
    B. afzelii, and/or B. garinii) which may reflect cross-reactivity but also may result from coinfections with more than one species.
  • Previous exposure to Lyme and other tick-borne diseases can increase risk of severe COVID and this is the first observation that suggests links between Lyme disease and COVID-19 prognostics.
  • The authors state that screening of anti-Borrelia antibodies in COVID patients could identify high-risk patients and improve their management.
Journal reference:
  • Szewczyk-Dabrowska, A., Budziar, W., Harhala, M., et al. (2022). Correlation between COVID-19 severity and previous exposure of patients to Borrelia spp. Research Square. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1799732/v1.

_________________

**Comment**

This is a very interesting study but I come up with slightly different take-aways.  The first of which is – don’t let this article frighten you.  1) there are cheap, effective, safe treatments for COVID.  Far safer & cheaper than Lyme/MSIDS treatment! 2) it only makes logical sense that those with Lyme/MSIDS are sitting ducks for pretty much everything including highly contagious viruses (if that’s what this even is). Lyme/MSIDS patients already struggle with EBV, Herpes, cytomegalovirus, and much, much more.  You are not a hopeless, helpless victim. There are answers and actions you can take to protect yourself and treat yourself should you contract COVID.:

  • The case study states that the person’s Lyme was suppressed due to anti-COVID meds, yet list antibiotics (ceftriaxone & azithromycin) that are used often for Lyme – which would explain the suppression.  Suppression doesn’t mean the Lyme goes away, it just means it isn’t being picked up on the test – a common, well-known problem patients deal with on a daily basis.
  • HCQ was used, which is also used for Babesia, a coinfection they didn’t look for but is known to cause much more severe Lyme for a greater duration IF the patient has both infection concurrently.
  • And Umifenovir is a broad‐spectrum antiviral, which while it doesn’t treat Lyme directly, could assist by beating back other viruses like herpes, EBV, and others – all of which are big players in Lyme.  Treating Lyme/MSIDS is a balancing act.  Giving appropriate treatment to beat back infections and supporting your immune system to handle what’s there without freaking out is more in line than a “cure” of erradicating everything within you.  We are covered in germs/viruses and most are held in check by our immune system.  A tick/insect bite changes that balance (or other modes of transmission such as congenital or sexual, etc)
  • They looked for 19 antigens which is unheard of for average folk!
  • They found Lyme (antibodies) in nearly everyone – even the controls!  This, to me, is the real finding. 
  • Their suggestion to “screen for anti-Borrelia antibodies in COVID patients” to identify potential “high risk” patients only has one flaw:  testing sucks and is not to be trusted!

Hydrogen Peroxide for COVID Shown to Work in Hospital Study

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9113766/

2022 Aug; 126: 103–108.
Published online 2022 May 18. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2022.05.007
PMCID: PMC9113766
PMID: 35594985

Further observations on hydrogen peroxide antisepsis and COVID-19 cases among healthcare workers and inpatients

Abstract

Background

The use of prophylactic antisepsis to protect against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been suggested. This study investigated hydrogen peroxide antisepsis (HPA) at two hospitals in Ghana.

Methods

Cases of COVID-19 among healthcare workers (HCWs) using hydrogen peroxide (HP-HCWs) or not using hydrogen peroxide (NHP-HCWs), vaccinated or unvaccinated, were recorded at Shai-Osudoku Hospital (SODH), Dodowa, and Mount Olives Hospital (MOH), Techiman, between May 2020 and December 2021. The effect of HPA in all inpatients at MOH was also observed. Permutation tests were used to determine P values.

Findings

At SODH, there were 62 (13.5%) cases of COVID-19 among 458 NHP-HCWs but no cases among eight HP-HCWs (P=0.622) from May to December 2020. Between January and March 2021, 10 (2.7%) of 372 NHP-HCWs had COVID-19, but there were no cases among 94 HP-HCWs (P=0.206). At MOH, prior to HPA, 17 (20.2%) of 84 HCWs and five (1.4%) of 370 inpatients had COVID-19 in July 2020. From August 2020 to March 2021, two of 54 (3.7%) HCWs who stopped HPA had COVID-19; none of 32 NHP-HCWs contracted COVID-19. At SODH, none of 23 unvaccinated HP-HCWs and 35 (64%) of 55 unvaccinated NHP-HCWs had COVID-19 from April to December 2021 (P<0.0001). None of 34 vaccinated HP-HCWs and 53 (13.6%) of 390 vaccinated NHP-HCWs had COVID-19 (P=0.015). No inpatients on prophylactic HPA (total 7736) contracted COVID-19.

Conclusion

Regular, daily HPA protects HCWs from COVID-19, and curtails nosocomial spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Results

The use of HPA was beneficial to both vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs, and offered significant protection for both groups at SODH. HPA also curtailed nosocomial spread of COVID-19 at MOH. No COVID-19 deaths occurred among HCWs during the period of observation. No adverse events of the use of HPA were reported.

The concentration of hydrogen peroxide used for mouthwashing/gargling was 1%, and the concentration used for nasal rinsing (two drops per each nostril) was 0.5%. The duration of mouthwashing and gargling, and nasal rinsing was 1 min. At SODH, HPA was practised daily, except during peak periods of SARS-CoV-2 transmission when some HCWs resorted to twice-daily application.

Hospital Study Shows This Can Prevent COVID-19 Infection

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola
July 23, 2022

Story at-a-glance

  • A hospital study published in June 2022 revealed that hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) mouthwash, gargle and nasal rinse protected against COVID-19 better than the jab
  • When food grade H2O2 is nebulized for approximately 30 minutes in normal saline it also reaches your sinuses and lungs where it can kill the virus, augment your natural defense system and may help stop an ongoing infection in the lungs and upper respiratory tract
  • Taxpayers recently spent $275 million, or $1,833 per dose, on a new monoclonal antibody drug. It is approved for people who are most vulnerable and at high risk for progression to severe disease despite the risks not being known at this time
  • Paxlovid is another drug purchased with taxpayer dollars at up to $530 per five-day course of treatment. People are requiring a second course of treatment when the infection rebounds with worse symptoms, as it did with quadruple-vaccinated Dr. Anthony Fauci
  • Although health authorities would like to keep you chained to new and not thoroughly tested drugs, you have choices including highly successful protocols that cost less and use supplements and drugs that have been sold for many years

Most health experts agree that early and aggressive treatment for COVID-19 helps to reduce the potential for long COVID symptoms and reduces the risk of severe disease. From the beginning, the pharmaceutical industry has sought to develop new and expensive antiviral drugs to treat the coronavirus responsible for COVID-19 with an aim at profits. The newest drug — monoclonal antibody treatment bebtelovimab from Eli Lilly1 — is no exception.

For example, Dr. Anthony Fauci’s favorite drug used early in the pandemic on hospitalized patients — remdesivir — cost the taxpayers over $70.5 million to develop.2 A five-day course of treatment costs private insurance companies $3,120 and the government $2,340,3 which is doubled at $6,240 for private companies and $4,680 for the government for a 10-day course.

This is well above the drug maker’s estimated cost for production, which is between $10 and $600 for a 10-day course.4 Fauci, who is the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), has been the face of the public health initiatives against COVID since the pandemic was announced by the World Health Organization in March 2020.

In the first year or more of the pandemic, patients were told to suffer at home until they were near death and then go to the hospital where they were placed on deadly ventilator treatment.5,6

In my interview with Dr. Pierre Kory,7 one of the leaders in the movement to provide early treatment for COVID infection, he recalled how he refused to remain in leadership at the University of Wisconsin Medical Center where the hospital insisted on providing supportive care only to their patients.8

However, as the pharmaceutical industry has released a variety of drugs or treatments, including monoclonal antibodies, Paxlovid and remdesivir, the perspective has changed.

Hospitals and physicians now offer pharmaceutical treatments approved under emergency use authorization (EUA) with unknown long-term side effects but continue to refuse to use well-established drugs with known side effect profiles that have proven to be effective. Hydrogen peroxide is one of those preventive measures and treatments.

Hospital Study Shows H2O2 Prevents COVID-19

In August 2022, a study9,10 of over 4,000 patients and 89 health care staff in a hospital in Ghana revealed the results of those who used hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) mouthwash, gargle and nasal rinse daily as a preventive against COVID-19.11

The researchers compared the data between two hospitals in Ghana where individuals who were vaccinated or not vaccinated either used H2O2 prophylactically or did not. The effect on inpatients was also recorded. They found that in the 89 health care staff members who used the H2O2 preventively, only one contracted COVID-19 and that person had discontinued using the rinses.

None of the greater than 4,000 patients who were treated with H2O2 got COVID-19. In another hospital, 424 staff members were fully vaccinated; 34 of those used hydrogen peroxide and none developed COVID-19. Of the remaining 390 health care staff, 53 developed COVID-19.

In another group of 78 unvaccinated staff, 23 used hydrogen peroxide and none of them contracted COVID-19. In the remaining group, 35 got COVID-19. The results from this study suggested that H2O2 was more effective at preventing COVID-19 than the jab.

The participants used 1% hydrogen peroxide mouthwash and diluted hydrogen peroxide to 0.5% for the nasal cavity rinse. The treatment was done only once daily.

The researchers concluded, “Regular, daily HPA [hydrogen peroxide antisepsis] protects HCWs [health care workers] from COVID-19 and curtails nosocomial spread of SARS-CoV-2.”12 This is important since infections in the hospital are more easily transmitted when staff have greater face-to-face exposure with patients and each other.

The data from the August 22 study confirmed an earlier observational report13 by the same team on two groups of health care workers. In the earlier results, the researchers found that 89 of 944 health care workers who did not use hydrogen peroxide tested positive for COVID-19 in the study period. During the same time, 154 health care workers used the hydrogen peroxide treatment and 100% of those tested negative.

A Nebulizer Drives the Hydrogen Peroxide Even Deeper

In April 2021, I interviewed Dr. Thomas Levy,14 board-certified cardiologist who is best known for his work with vitamin C. We discussed the use of nebulized hydrogen peroxide, which has become my favorite intervention for the treatment and prevention of viral illnesses.

H2O2 is part of your body’s natural defense system, so using nebulized H2O2 just augments your body’s natural defense system. However, as I discuss in the video above, it’s essential that you mix the solution appropriately, use normal saline to protect your lung tissue and use the treatment until all the fluid in the chamber has evaporated, often taking approximately 30 minutes.

Nebulized hydrogen peroxide also requires the use of a food-grade product that does not have the stabilizers and chemical preservatives found in the H2O2 bottle on drugstore shelves. It is also important to use distilled water or saline, since tap water can contain a deadly amoeba.15 Your gastrointestinal tract can adequately take care of this pathogen but inhaling it into your lungs can cause significant damage.

One of the benefits of nebulizing hydrogen peroxide is that it disperses the H2O2 throughout your mouth, nasal cavity, sinuses, throat and lungs. This is especially powerful if you have been exposed to a viral illness or are sick.

Nebulized H2O2 can help kill viral particles in your respiratory tract but does not reach any viral particles in the rest of your body. Therefore, using nebulized H2O2 after exposure or in the early hours of a respiratory infection may help stop an infection in its tracks.

If you miss the early window to prevent an infection, using the treatment also helps to protect your lungs from developing pneumonia, which can be deadly in those with COVID-1916,17 or flu.18

Taxpayers Spend $1,833 per Dose on Monoclonal Antibody Drug

In February 2022, the FDA19 approved an EUA for a new monoclonal antibody treatment for the COVID-19 omicron variant. The drug — bebtelovimab — was developed by Eli Lilly. The government immediately ordered 600,000 doses, spending $1.08 billion or $1,800 per dose.20 According to Endpoint News,21 another order for 150,000 doses was approved for $275 million, the equivalent of $1,833 per dose.

The $33 per dose increase in price occurred in just four months. While this may not sound like a lot of money for a single dose, spread over 150,000 doses it means the U.S. taxpayers shelled out an extra $4.9 million for the same drug just four months later.

According to the announcement by the FDA,22 the EUA was approved for the treatment of mild to moderate infection in adults and children 12 years of age and older who are at least 88 pounds. The individuals must have a positive COVID-19 test and have indications that they are:

“… at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19, including hospitalization or death, and for whom alternative COVID-19 treatment options approved or authorized by the FDA are not accessible or clinically appropriate.”

In other words, for an illness that has a track record of 99% recovery,23 the U.S. government has thus far spent $1.35 billion on 750,000 doses of a drug that by the FDA’s own evaluation should only be used for individuals who are at high risk of severe COVID-19.

According to CDC data24 there were a total of slightly over 1 million deaths from COVID-19 over a 2.5-year period. However, as even the CDC has admitted, many of the deaths attributed to COVID-19 have actually been people died WITH COVID-19, not FROM it.

One of the more infamous cases of death certificates recording a COVID death was from a motorcycle accident,25 which may have been following the CDC’s own guideline for reporting deaths:26

“In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID cannot be made but is suspected or likely (e.g. the circumstances are compelling with a reasonable degree of certainty) it is acceptable to report COVID-19 on a death certificate as ‘probable’ or ‘presumed.'”

As has been widely reported, while the omicron virus is more transmissible, it is also less virulent and doesn’t cause the severe illness that the variants before it.27 Additionally, if the government drinks their own Kool-Aid, those who are vaccinated are protected from severe disease.28

Thus, there should be no need for 750,000 doses of a monoclonal antibody that should only be prescribed to those at “high risk”29 of severe illness. Added to this, Drugs.com reports, “Not many people have received bebtelovimab. Serious and unexpected side effects may happen. All of the risks are not known at this time.”30

Rebound Illness After Antiviral Paxlovid

Fierce Pharma31 reported that Pfizer also scored a huge deal when the U.S. doubled their order for the antiviral Paxlovid from 10 million to 20 million courses of treatment. The first 10 million cost the U.S. taxpayers $5.29 billion and contributed to Pfizer’s anticipated revenue of $101.3 billion in 2022.

Fierce Pharma32 also reported that one analyst, writing to clients, reported that Paxlovid had a “leg up” on molnupiravir because of its “superior efficacy and safety profile.”

Paxlovid joins a long list of drugs developed specifically for COVID-19 that have not proven to be effective. Reports are emerging33 that patients treated with a five-day course will sometimes experience severe rebound when the course is completed. Government officials are planning to study the rate of rebound, the extent to which the drug causes rebound and whether a longer regimen will reduce the effect.

Virologist David Ho described the post-Paxlovid rebound he experienced in April to Bloomberg.34 After getting sick, his doctor prescribed Paxlovid. Days later his symptoms dissipated, and the tests were negative. However, 10 days after getting sick, the symptoms returned and the tests were positive again.

He sequenced the virus in his body and found that the infection before and after taking Paxlovid were from the same strain, confirming that the virus didn’t mutate or become resistant to the drug. Pfizer, meanwhile, insists the increase in viral load post-treatment “is unlikely to be related to Paxlovid” because viral rebound was found in “a small number” of both the treatment and placebo groups in Pfizer’s final-stage study.35

Subsequently, quadruple-vaccinated Fauci reported that he tested positive for COVID-19 and experienced mild symptoms.36 Reportedly his age placed him at high risk for complications and he was then prescribed Paxlovid.37 CNN reported he described the “interesting course” of his COVID-19 infection during an appearance at Foreign Policy’s Global Health Forum.

Fauci told the group that after five days he was negative for three consecutive days on an antigen test. Apparently, three negative tests weren’t enough, so he tested himself again on the fourth day “just to be absolutely certain.” By that time, he had reverted to a positive test. “It was sort of what people are referring to as a Paxlovid rebound,” he said.38

Low Cost, Low Side Effect, Effective Treatment Available

Fauci reported that his symptoms were worse when they returned the second time after treatment. He was prescribed another course of Paxlovid and at the time of the interview, he was on day 4 of a 5-day course. He reportedly felt “reasonably good” although “not completely without symptoms.”39

The cost of Paxlovid can be as much as $53040 for a five-day course, but consumers get it for “free” since it was purchased with their tax dollars. During these past two years, the government has spent billions of dollars buying medication for an infectious illness that has been proven to be successfully treated at home using far less expensive medications and supplements.

For example, the overall survival rate across all age groups and all risk strata is 99%, but the Zelenko Protocol41 has demonstrated a 99% survival rate in high-risk patients. His published treatment protocol includes over-the-counter supplements vitamins C and D3, elemental zinc and quercetin for low-risk patients.

Patients who have a moderate or high risk of severe disease are treated with vitamin C and D3, elemental zinc, azithromycin, doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance42 has developed several protocols43 aimed at prevention, early treatment, long-haul COVID treatment, post-vaccine recovery and hospital treatment. First-line therapies in early treatment include over-the-counter zinc, vitamin C, melatonin, quercetin, probiotics, curcumin, aspirin, mouthwash and nasal spray. Prescription medications include ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

Both protocols are highly successful with known side effect profiles since the medications and supplements have been used for many years. Both protocols are based on the premise that early treatment can reduce the risk of long-haul COVID symptoms and the potential to develop severe disease. Most of the therapies are inexpensive and easily purchased over the counter.

The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance44 also maintains a list of physicians who follow the protocols and provide in-office and telehealth services. I believe one of the most powerful strategies you can use preventively and in early treatment is nebulized hydrogen peroxide.

As the featured study demonstrated, even with store-bought hydrogen peroxide diluted for nasal wash, mouthwash and gargling once daily, you can effectively prevent infection. Although health authorities would like to limit your treatment choices and keep you chained to new and not thoroughly tested drugs where “all the risks are not known at this time,”45 you have choices and can take control of your health.

For more:

How to Protect Yourself From Ticks With Permethrin-Treated Clothing

https://danielcameronmd.com/permethrin-treated-clothing-causes-hot-foot-effect-ticks/

How to protect yourself from ticks with Permethrin-treated clothing

how-to-protect-yourself-from-ticks

Several studies have found that wearing permethrin-treated clothing can reduce the risk of tick bites. But very few studies have looked at the behavior of a tick when it comes in contact with permethrin-treated clothing. Does it climb onto the insecticide-soaked textile or avoid it entirely? Does permethrin actually kill ticks?

By Dr. Cameron

As more individuals begin to venture outside with warmer weather, there are often concerns over how to protect yourself from ticks. Researchers have examined not only the effectiveness of various repellents and protective clothing but also the behavior of individuals who are more likely to encounter ticks.

Researchers in Indiana looked at the protective measures used by recreational hikers in their state. Surprisingly, they found that only 9.5% of hikers used a tick repellent, even fewer (3.4%) wore protective clothing and only 2 individuals “indicated that they took a shower post-recreation and used that activity to search for tick bites.” [1]

Ultrasonic device

Meanwhile, investigators in Australia recently studied the efficacy of ultrasonic pest repellent devices against the Australian paralysis tick, Ixodes holocyclus. “As more than 80% of the ticks were not repelled within the confined area, this level of repellency is clearly insufficient to provide adequate protection from a potential tick bite,” they conclude. [2]

Permethrin-treated clothing

Several studies have looked at Permethrin-treated clothing in repelling ticks.  Sullivan et al. recruited state and county park employees from North Carolina to wear long-lasting Permethrin-impregnated (LLPI) clothing. The authors found that the clothing “retained Permethrin and bioactivity against ticks after three months of use in real-world conditions.” [3]

A study in Rhode Island aimed to provide insight as to how to protect yourself from ticks by examining Permethrin-treated footwear. The authors found that people wearing sneakers and socks treated with Permethrin were 73.6 times less likely to have a tick bite than those wearing untreated footwear. [4]

Researchers found “people wearing sneakers and socks treated with Permethrin were 73.6 times less likely to have a tick bite than those wearing untreated footwear.”

Meanwhile, another study explored the behavior of ticks when they encounter Permethrin-treated clothing. How do ticks react? Using a model that mimicked a pant leg or the arm of a long-sleeved shirt, scientists studied the behavior and fate of ticks when exposed to Permethrin-treated clothing. [5]

“Ticks approaching a textile impregnated with a strong non-contact spatial repellent (DEET) very rarely made physical contact with the treated textile,” according to Eisen and colleagues from the Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [4]

Tick behavior when exposed to Permethrin

However, Permethrin-treated textiles did not repel ticks without contact, as seen with DEET. In fact, the majority (88%) of nymphal ticks chose to move onto Permethrin-treated textile versus DEET-treated textile.

After coming in contact with the treated clothing, the ticks dislodged through a “hot-foot” effect.

“Ticks readily walked onto a Permethrin-treated textile…. but laboratory-reared ticks became visibly agitated, displaying a hot-foot effect, and escaped contact with the Permethrin-treated textile by tumbling downwards until they dislodged themselves completely from a textile-covered assay card.”

Unfortunately, field-collected ticks were hardier than laboratory-reared ticks and able to sustain longer contact with the treated textile. The authors postulated that field-collected ticks have been exposed to highly variable temperatures and humidity conditions which may result in slower absorption of Permethrin.

“However, by 1 and 24 hours post-exposure very few ticks displayed normal movement, thus presenting minimal risk to bite, regardless of whether they were reared in the laboratory or collected in the field.”

“Contact with Permethrin-treated textiles negatively impacts the vigor and behavior of nymphal ticks for >24 hours,” according to Eisen, “with outcomes ranging from complete lack of movement to impaired movement and unwillingness of ticks displaying normal movement to ascend onto a human finger.”

One day after exposure, a majority of ticks were completely motionless. The remaining ticks were able to recover. “Ticks having recovered normal movement 1 day after exposure in our study most often ascended onto a finger when given the opportunity (and presumably also were capable of biting),” Eisen points out.

“In a real-life scenario, prolonged periods of time where ticks having fallen off a human host after contact with Permethrin-treated textile are unable to move will undoubtedly increase the risk of mortality due to desiccation or predation.”

“A scenario more difficult to address in a bioassay is when a tick makes initial contact with bare skin and subsequently approaches loose-fitting summer-weight Permethrin treated garments, such as shorts or a T-shirt,” states Eisen.

“In this case, the tick may walk underneath the treated textile and be contacted primarily from the dorsal side as the person moves and the clothing comes in and out of contact with the tick and the person’s skin.”

Permethrin is acutely toxic in high doses. The authors did not address the potential toxicity of Permethrin to humans. “Acute signs of toxicity to the central nervous system include incoordination, ataxia, hyperactivity, convulsions, and finally prostration, paralysis, and death,” according to a review by the National Research Council (US) Subcommittee to Review Permethrin Toxicity from Military Uniforms. [6]

Note: Users have been advised not to inhale Permethrin when treating clothes and not to apply Permethrin to the skin.

Article Updated: June 1, 2021

References:
  1. Anderson KR, Blekking J, Omodior O. Tick trails: the role of online recreational trail reviews in identifying risk factors and behavioral recommendations associated with tick encounters in Indiana. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):908. Published 2021 May 13. doi:10.1186/s12889-021-10940-4
  2. Panthawong A, Doggett SL, Chareonviriyaphap T. The Efficacy of Ultrasonic Pest Repellent Devices against the Australian Paralysis Tick, Ixodes holocyclus (Acari: Ixodidae). Insects. 2021;12(5):400. Published 2021 Apr 30. doi:10.3390/insects12050400
  3. Sullivan KM, Poffley A, Funkhouser S, et al. Bioabsorption and effectiveness of long-lasting permethrin-treated uniforms over three months among North Carolina outdoor workers. Parasit Vectors. 2019;12(1):52. Published 2019 Jan 23. doi:10.1186/s13071-019-3314-1
  4. Tick Encounter. https://www.tickencounter.org/prevention/permethrin
  5. Eisen L, Rose D, Prose R, et al. Bioassays to evaluate non-contact spatial repellency, contact irritancy, and acute toxicity of permethrin-treated clothing against nymphal Ixodes scapularis ticks. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2017.
  6. Health Effects of Permethrin-Impregnated Army Battle-Dress Uniforms (1994) by National Research Council. 1994. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9274. at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/9274/health-effects-of-permethrin-impregnated-army-battle-dress-uniforms. Last accessed 8/12/17.

For more: