According to recent studies and RCTs in various countries, the antiparasitic drug ivermectin – a WHO essential medicine – is achieving a covid-19 risk reduction of up to 98% in pre-exposure prophylaxis and up to 91% in early treatment. A recent French study found a reduction in severe and fatal covid by 100% even in high-risk nursing home patients with an average age of 90.

Moreover, an analysis just published in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents found that African countries using ivermectin as prophylaxis against parasites report a much lower – in fact, near zero – covid incidence compared to other African and non-African countries.

The very high reported effectiveness of low-cost ivermectin against SARS-like coronavirus infections may turn out to be a major medical discovery. Doctors and health authorities are encouraged to consider the ivermectin studies overview and the ivermectin-based US-FLCCC treatment protocol.

See also: On the treatment of covid-19.

Note: Patients are asked to consult a doctor.

This week, the latest US national antibody data covering the period from September 7 to September 24 has been published. With the exception of a few northeastern states (notably New York), most US states still had an antibody seroprevalence below 10% or even below 5%.

Continue reading →

A Joe Biden presidency means a “return to normality” simply because it means a return of the US Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Continue reading →

Die Schweiz ist nun eines der letzten Länder Europas ohne Lockdown. Bis Oktober gab es noch keine Jahresübersterblichkeit, seit November steigen die Todesfälle indes wieder deutlich an und erreichen die Spitzenwerte der stärksten Grippewellen der letzten Jahrzehnte (siehe Grafik oben; 1969: Hongkong-Grippe), wiewohl in einer heute deutlich älteren Bevölkerung: das Medianalter der Schweizer Corona-Todesfälle liegt bei 86 Jahren (ca. 50% in Pflegeheimen).

Weiterlesen →

The Danish randomized controlled trial on the real-world efficacy of face masks against coronavirus infection – the first of its kind – has now been published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. As expected, the trial found no statistically significant benefit of wearing a face mask. The study used “high-quality surgical masks with a filtration rate of 98%”.

Continue reading →

Verschiedene traditionelle Medien berichten derzeit in falscher Weise über eine amerikanische CDC-Studie mit Schlagzeilen wie “Jedes zweite Corona-positive Kind steckt die Familie an”.

Das ist falsch: Die kleine CDC-Studie (101 Haushalte, darunter nur 5 mit einem erkrankten Kind unter 12 Jahren) untersuchte nur symptomatische Personen, und selbst in diesen, bei Kindern eher seltenen Fällen konnte die Studie nicht ermitteln, ob das Kind die Erwachsenen ansteckte oder doch die Erwachsenen das Kind (was insgesamt wesentlich häufiger vorkommt).

Alle seriösen Studien zeigten bisher, dass das Ansteckungsrisiko durch junge Kinder bis circa 12 Jahre sehr gering ist (bei Jugendlichen gilt das allerdings nicht mehr). Eine deutsche Studie fand zuletzt eine Ansteckungsrate durch Schulkinder von 0,54%. Als Grund vermuten Forscher eine raschere Immunantwort und eine geringe Ausprägung relevanter Zellrezeptoren.

Einmal mehr muss konstatiert werden, dass viele traditionelle Medien über die Corona-Pandemie oftmals unprofessionell, einseitig, irreführend oder propagandistisch berichten.

In terms of covid deaths per population size, Belgium is the hardest hit country in the world. Nevertheless, Belgium’s peak monthly mortality in April 2020 was equal to the 1989 seasonal flu wave and lower than the 1951, 1960 and 1970 flu waves (see chart above).

This is despite the fact that the Belgian population is significantly older today than during these earlier flu waves: about 50% of Belgian covid deaths occurred in nursing homes, about 95% were older than 65 years, and the median age of Belgian covid deaths was about 86 years.

However, Belgian antibody seroprevalence until June was only about 7% at the national level and 12% in Brussels. International studies indicate a significant slow-down of the epidemic once an antibody level of 20 to 30% is reached. Higher values of up to 60% have only been reached in some densely populated areas due to a so-called epidemic overshoot.

Some media have reported about an Italian study claiming to have found “SARS-CoV-2 antibodies” in Italian blood donations as early as September 2019. In reality, the study only found antibodies cross-reactive to the SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain, and it has been known for months that these may be due to seasonal common cold coronaviruses.

According to a leaked Chinese investigation report, the first suspected covid-19 patients were admitted to Wuhan hospitals in late September and early October of 2019. This coincides with a preceding inspection and review of virus samples at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in September 2019. The WIV was storing and studying the closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2. On 12 September 2019, the WIV deleted its cross-species viral pathogen database.

Researcher Gilles Demaneuf has recently described in detail three SARS-1 lab escapes in Chinese and Taiwanese P3 and P4 high-security labs. Nevertheless, the Lancet Covid-19 Commission chose Peter Daszak to lead the SARS-2 virus origin investigation. Daszak is the president of “EcoHealth Alliance”, a US Pentagon contractor which collaborated with the WIV on SARS virus research.

More: On the origin of the new coronavirus →

A safe and effective vaccine could be a very important tool to fight and end the covid pandemic. For countries that have managed to keep the new coronavirus out or under control (e.g. New Zealand), mass vaccination of their population is probably the only possible exit strategy.

Pfizer and BioNTech have recently announced that their vaccine is “90% effective”. This simple press release has increased the net worth of the BioNTech founder and the two main investors in the company by $2 billion.

In reality, the “90% effectiveness” claim is based on just 94 cases, whose data hasn’t even been released yet. And vaccine experts have previously noted that the coronavirus vaccine trials are “designed to succeed”: they only consider if a vaccine reduces symptoms – even mild symptoms –, not if it reduces infections, transmission, hospitalizations, or deaths.

In short, the “90% effectiveness” claim, at this point, is mostly PR. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, in particular, is a highly experimental vaccine based on novel mRNA technology and lipid nano particles, whose long-term health impact remains largely unknown.

Historically, vaccines are said to have been a success in the 1957 and 1968 Asian flu pandemics, while they were a failure (ineffective, unnecessary or dangerous) in the 1976 and 2009 “swine flu” pandemics. The jury on the coronavirus vaccines is still out.

(German only) Traditionelle Medien verbreiten weiterhin diverse Corona-Mythen. Eine Auswahl:

1. “Nur bei Corona kommt es zu einer Überlastung von Intensivstationen.” Falsch: Bei den meisten starken saisonalen Grippewellen kommt es zu einer Überlastung von Intensivstationen, inklusive Abweisung von Patienten und Verschiebung von Operationen.
2. “Nur bei Corona erhalten Menschen aus Pflegeheimen keine Intensivbehandlung.” Falsch: Bis zu Corona kritisierten Medien und Pfleger sogar, wenn mit der zumeist fragwürdigen Intensivbehandlung von hochbetagten Menschen noch Profite generiert wurden.
3. “Ein Lockdown ist besser für die Wirtschaft.” Falsch: Laut IMF-Analyse gilt: Je härter der Lockdown, desto stärker der Wirtschaftseinbruch (siehe Grafik und Studie). Weltweit werden Lockdowns laut UNO und WHO hunderte Millionen Existenzen bedrohen oder zerstören.
4. “Auch ohne Lockdown käme es zum Wirtschaftseinbruch, da die Menschen Angst haben.” Falsch: Die Angst wurde in erster Linie durch Medien erzeugt. In Ländern wie Schweden und Belarus funktionierte die Gesellschaft ohne Lockdown und Masken weitgehend normal.
5. “Nur bei Corona gibt es langanhaltende Symptome.” Falsch: Post-akutes Corona ist ein reales und sehr ernsthaftes Problem, aber es bewegt sich im Rahmen des post-viralen Syndroms, das auch von starker bzw. pandemischer Influenza bekannt ist.

Zu bedenken ist, dass die meisten traditionellen Medien in genau jene Netzwerke eingebunden sind, deren Exponenten Corona für ein politisches und ökonomisches “New Normal” und einen “Great Reset” nutzen möchten, obschon Corona durchaus vergleichbar ist mit den mildesten Grippe-Pandemien des 20. Jahrhunderts (1957 und 1968).