Global Health Effects on Markets and Mining Stock

Consider this as commentary with a few items of news thrown in. Generally, the media does not do a good job, partially because there is just so much information on this virus. There is way more that needs to be done besides the single focus that resulted in an economic shutdown. Much of the crisis facing hospitals is over. There is so much we don’t know about this CCP coronavirus that should not stop the country from returning to a phased in normal. Much of the country still carried on with most essential work during the entire crisis. It is now time to show that the country can “walk and chew gum” at the same time as new problems and challeges show up daily to be met. The economic crisis is looming much larger than the coronavirus now. Both need to be met and overcome.

Admitting patients after a sudden crash is often too late. Recent information suggests Oximetry on an initial evaluation is not only a great idea, but should now be routine. As though there aren’t enough complications associated with this virus, have you heard about this one:

From Barrons:

Mysterious Blood Clots Are COVID-19’s Latest Lethal Surprise

Issam Ahmed and Ivan Couronne

April 27, 2020

…It’s also now clear the COVID-19 illness is associated with an abnormal immune reaction called “cytokine storm” – and some research has indicated this too is linked to higher rates of clotting.

There could also be something about the virus itself that is causing coagulation, which has some precedent in other viral illnesses.

A paper in the journal The Lancet last week showed that the virus can infect the inner cell layer of organs and of blood vessels, called the endothelium. This, in theory, could interfere with the clotting process.

According to Brosnahan, while thinners like Heparin are effective in some patients, they don’t work for all patients because the clots are at times too small.

Much more work is needed in all clinical trials that are underway. I’ve “heard” there are more than 70(?) treatments or clinical trials that have FDA approval under the emergency compassionate use provisions. Some have Federal funding. Let’s hope more than one of these clinical trials brings some good therapeutic, prophylactic, curative or prolonged immunity. There are many in the search to defeat this virus.

That’s why this link is of great interest to me in assuring that the search continues using the best technology available:

COVID-19 HPC Consortium

This chart was presented by the task force recently:
COVID-19 Clearance times

We know there are numerous studies underway by injecting monoclonal antibodies (MABs) or MABs attached to antibodies to target the CCP coronavirus. There is some other surprising research few are aware of, such as injecting a “Disinfectant” into your body.

There is a very short 3 minute video that introduces what this researcher has to say on how Cl02 works generally to cure some diseases, and it’s use as a safe disinfectant that can be ingested if sufficiently diluted:

Search Videos

or go here: Andreas Kalcker - COVER

CHLORINE DIOXIDE FOR CORONAVIRUS: A REVOLUTIONARY, SIMPLE AND EFFECTIVE APPROACH

By A. Kalcker

Posted 21 March, 2020

Every Physician is authorized to use new or unproven preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic procedures according to the HELSINKI WORLD MEDICAL ASSOCIATION STATEMENT – Section No. 37 (This would be the case with chlorine dioxide)

ClO2 aka MMS actually increases oxygen in the bloodstream, Andreas Ludwig Kalcker measured it with venous gasometric tests, It is selective as it works on pH., it activates stem cells in and outside the body, He is working on this research in Switzerland and it will be one of the biggest disclosures in the future of the health field. It does…

Ok, the above link introduces the oral route for treatment of the coronavirus; the somewhat longer 8 ½ minute video link found within the research website below has me convinced that Andreas Ludwig Kalcker is truly an expert that knows exactly what he is talking about. Although the research paper is interesting, it is the video link that looks like the image below you’ll need to look at to see how it relates to the injection of Cl02 to eliminate COVID-19:
Why ClO2 works against covid 19
https://andreaskalcker.com/en/coronavirus-special-information-for-physicians-and-researchers/

Chlorine dioxide (ClO2) has been used for over 100 years to combat all types of bacteria, viruses and fungi successfully. It acts as a disinfectant, since in its mode of action it turns out to be an oxidant. [1# Biological Efficacy List ] It is very similar to the way our own body acts, for example in phagocytosis, where an oxidation process is used to eliminate all kinds of pathogens.

We are learning more each day on possible solutions to defeat this virus. Early modeling using the dire worst case possible outcomes guided the nation’s early policies. It was what we had to work with at the time. Was it an over reaction? New predictions and policies are being formulated and being implemented. It does not appear the hospital system is in danger of being overwhelmed at the present time by the coronavirus or seasonal flu. Normal healthcare needs to be returned to much of the country. Technology has helped to move things along swiftly and will continue to be applied by numerous groups working collaboratively.

The antibody tests now being developed and applied will target selected groups first, and paired with the viral PCR test, will provide the best information. Medical care to those in need and prevention by detecting early outbreaks is the goal. Both of these kinds of tests have a “sensitivity” deemed unreliable under certain circumstances that is dependent on several factors. In general, the PCR viral test is best at showing a positive result 5-6 days after an exposure. If given earlier it may register as a false negative. The antibody test when given to small random test populations has show there are many asymptomatic individuals that have encountered the virus.This ELISA antibody test is actually most useful about 40 days after a confirmed clinical case of the disease has been resolved. This is because antibodies have generally reached a maximum after this length of time and may confer protection from future encounters with the virus. Much lower anti-body levels may be completely asymptomatic or have resulted from a mild case of the disease. These lower levels may not be protective until a higher concentration of antibody is achieved.

The logical first group to be “dual tested” are those who are directly involved in treating the severe cases. All hospital workers and symptomatic individuals need to be tested, and those at highest risk should have priority with testing until a sufficient number of tests are widely available. Availability of tests are definitely being ramped up to meet the challenge. There is no real need to test every individual.

Those individuals returning to work should be those with lowest risk in the population of having a severe set-back if exposed. Appropriate precautions and testing should be applied within each workplace. Much of the nation is ready to end the shelter-in-place recommendation. Those areas that need to be more cautious will take extra time, but there will always be some risk. Risk vs benefit should always be carefully considered. Let those at lowest risk return to productivity while those at higher risk continue to take necessary precautions. The health system can handle more than just CCP coronavirus cases. Most hospitals are presently underutilized at the expense of not taking care of the normal healthcare needs of patients. Telemedicine is not a substitute for all the health needs of the population.The debate on how best to defeat the threats of this virus are largely geographic. Both healthcare and the economy must return to normal as quickly as possible.

1 Like

Is it time?
Built into the human mind is, a physiological reaction, that, when, we perceive danger we know nothing of, our mind goes into flight or fight response.
This C.C.P. Virius has done just that. … to the world.
Now that we have lived with this virus for months… Maybe it is time we should “assess” if our fears were warranted:

This is insanity! What is the proper response and solution to this virus?

Great post CS! Made me do a little thinking. Who would question great insights from assessments in the general media? Further, why not just remove all “fake news” from such places as youtube and Facebook? Why should anyone subject themselves to viewing such faulty reasoning coming from a couple of frontline doctors actually fighting and dealing with the virus? Are these the only two being censored and removed from public view?

I watched the original interview and have to question whether censorship is increasingly being used to prevent dissemination of truth, or at least chill opposing views. Are Google and Facebook creating a new “book burning” mentality in the digital age by removing non-threatening interviews? People with a brain, even half a brain, can think and reason for themselves without having to rely on “anti stupidy” censorship of the kind apparently being engaged in.

Drs. Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi: Promoting dangerously bogus pseudo-epidemiology about COVID-19

There’s also a pandemic of pseudoscience, misinformation, disinformation, and just plain bad science.

Can we just see who the “author” is?

“DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity"…

Oh my; Much of the this authoratative piece to discredit the video was apparently mis-accredited as seen in the addendum. Admittedly I didn’t absorb the entire discrediting article as I had watched the video before it had been removed from all sources controlled by our favorite news outlets. Maybe I missed something in one or the other.

ADDENDUM: I apparently misattributed Michael Falk’s post. He was quoting someone named Steve Lee, whose original post is here.

Yes, we must not view anything firsthand. I ‘d much rather someone just “report” on what was removed or censored. lol

Steve Lee says:

…6.5% of the people in Bakersfield have or have had COVID-19; i.e., about 58,000 cases, far more than the 700 confirmed cases in the area thus far. He then makes the argument that hospitalization and case fatality rates should be based on these numbers, estimating the COVID-19 case fatality rate to be around 0.02%, arguing that it’s five times less lethal than the 0.1% case fatality rate due to the flu.

Actually, as I recall this has a very minor error. The actual interview I watched said something alarming - the COVID-19 case fatality rate was stated as "0.02” and no percent! I jumped out of my chair to replay it. Dan actually said “0.02” and had mistakenly(?) not included the all important “percent” after 0.02, indeed a rookie mistake! Simple math as a hypothesis … If 100,000 deaths are assumed to occur in the population of 350,000,000, then the resulting death rate is 0.00035 or 0.035%. Of course the entire population will not be exposed. Is 35,000,000 (10%) a more reasonable viral exposure, then the death rate would be 0.35% and, if 15% of population exposed, then 0.23% death rate and, if 20% of the population is exposed, then 0.175% and so on.

Just making a point; In the “original” H1N1 modeling, after 3 months, the initial death rate modeling by CDC was not at all accurate. CDC based modeling on confirmed hospital cases and deaths. When almost 3 years later the statistics were written up to report 274,304 hospitalized, 12,469 deaths and 60.8 million probable cases, it was not reflected in the original data. So, where are we now in CDC modeling? Was the original goal already met? Wasn’t the goal to assure that our hospital system would not collapse and be overrun with more patients than the healthcare system could handle ? Should we reassess if it was worth it and does it continue to make sense? What mistakes were made? Was it based on facts, or purposeful misinformation, and by whom?

Content on this page was developed during the 2009-2010 H1N1 pandemic and has not been updated .

The H1N1 virus that caused that pandemic is now a regular human flu virus and continues to circulate seasonally worldwide.

[CDC H1N1 Flu | Origin of 2009 H1N1 Flu (Swine Flu)]

(https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=2ahUKEwj1s5LIsZHpAhUWqp4KHaGdB3oQFjABegQICxAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fh1n1flu%2Finformation_h1n1_virus_qa.htm&usg=AOvVaw0IuTEbQWEuBg4vPSoTwq7e)

Note: The COVID-19 pandemic is affecting healthcare seeking behavior. The number of persons and their reasons for seeking care in the outpatient and ED settings is changing. These changes impact data from ILINet in ways that are difficult to differentiate from changes in illness levels, therefore ILINet data should be interpreted with caution.

Next question I have; Is healthcare still being decimated to keep hospitals from being overrun?

30,000 MAYO CLINIC EMPLOYEES FACING FURLOUGHS OR REDUCED HOURS

“Furloughs will begin in early May and will be spread through the rest of the year, with as many as possible happening through August.

From ABC news - April 24, 2020:

Even nation’s largest health systems laying off health care workers amid COVID pandemic

While private practices and smaller health systems were some of the first to be affected, as time has stretched on, some of the country’s largest health systems have shown that they too are vulnerable.

Yes fake news and misinformation abound! Time magazine reports:

Nearly 70 residents sickened with the coronavirus have died at a Massachusetts home for aging veterans, as state and federal officials try to figure out what went wrong in the deadliest known outbreak at a long-term care facility in the U.S.

The above news isn’t fake … it is a tragedy!

CS, Regarding your 2nd “expose” interview; All I can say is WOW! This doctor might not have everything just right, but he certainly has some interesting views. What if he is right? Well worth watching the entire interview. Has anyone paid attention to NIH, FDA and CDC lately?

NIH partners with 16 drug companies in hopes of accelerating Covid-19 treatments and vaccines:

By LEV FACHER @levfacher - APRIL 17, 2020

W ASHINGTON — The National Institutes of Health on Friday announced it would launch a sweeping public-private partnership between federal researchers and 16 pharmaceutical companies, aimed at coordinating and accelerating the development of Covid-19 treatments and vaccines.

The partnership, to be known as Accelerating Covid-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines, or ACTIV, is meant to standardize research between the federally funded researchers and a broad array of drug companies, and prioritize research into drugs and vaccines that are having high near-term potential.

Who is aligned with NIH to pick the winners and losers in the fight against the CCD coronavirus? Any conflicts of interest?

FNIH is the Foundation for the NIH, an intermediary that facilitates partnerships between private companies and federal researchers. Who noticed that former NIH Director and Sanofi executive Elias Zerhouni, sits on FNIH’s board. The 16 drug companies involved are: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Evotec, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, KSQ Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, and Vir Biotechnology. The information is in plain sight for those who look for it.

OK – Another comment or two about the 2nd video since I’m not yet Brain Dead! Dr. Rashid Buttar’s interview may just have an opposing view, or is it fake news? Can you decide before viewing it? Simply amazing to think a chimeric bioweapon was designed to modify a natural virus dating back to 2014? Pretty deep dive into origins of the origin of this CCP coronavirus! It may at times seem Truth and Disinformation are all the same thing these days! Does whatever you see and hear go into building your knowledge base and view of reality? Who is filtering your reality and making decisions that affect all of us?

People, if you’ve got a brain … can you use it? I don’t need censorship to judge and reason for myself what is factual and what is misinformation. Does what appear as valid information today have a sneaky way of becoming misinformation tomorrow? Usually, an interview is considered opinion; When written up, either to confirm or refute an idea or information, shouldn’t it be factual? Can you tell the validity of something after the original has been censored and removed from sight? Which is opinion and which is fact? Who is to judge? What happens when the average person considers opposing views before it is censored and determines which is truthful? Should a person speak up without fear of reprisal? Does speaking up and having the censorship “punishment” imposed have a chilling effect on all opposing views? Time will tell. It’s up to each of us to make a difference.

One more question I’d like answered. What science is used to determine who is essential and who is non-essential? Apologies for another very long post. My original impulse was to just do a short post from my phone. Perhaps I didn’t need to “sleep on it” and actually review the overwhelming amount of material presented (and now censored) in the public view. Thanks again for posting CS!

Few thoughts…

Actual fatality rate still appears to be around 1%. (For those that try to demonstrate otherwise…think smoke and mirrors, quackery, conspiracy theorists, those with a political agenda, non-scientists.) Bad flu around .1% (Here in Michigan is listed at 9.2% but lot of under counting going on but there are one or two really poorly run hospitals in the Detroit area. Numbers available here: https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en ) Attack rate will be around 60 to 80%(flu 10%) which all translates into being about 60 to 80X as bad as the common flu if allowed to run its course. No matter how you slice it, the damage it will do if allowed to run its course will be too high for most of society to accept except those with are just clueless, lack empathy or who are out right psychopaths.

It appears action by many states will indeed cause the virus to run its course. Some are starting to let things reopen despite having more active virus than when they first went into lock down. Crazy?

There will likely be no summer break as it was initially hoped this time around except where lock down measures remain mostly in tact the longest. 2nd (3rd or even 4th) waves are all but certain with the severity of the subsequent waves still in question.

There will be high vacancy rates in nursing homes and prisons in the coming months! Worst job in America going forward…perhaps those working in the meat packing industry?!!

Virus is now the leading cause of death in a number of places. On average of those that die from it, it is shortening their lives by 11 years which is considerable of living lost by almost any standard.

A high percentage of all who get the virus whether one comes down with symptoms or not may suffer lifetime long heath efforts the extent of which remains to be seen. My guess, Americans who are already a pretty sickly lot to begin with as a group will become even more feeble/ill after all is said and done in 18 to 24 months.

Finally, antivirals etc. continue to disappoint/under perform initial expectations. The most “promising” is Remdesivir but based on all the published results thus far and on unbiased expert opinion of those results, it will likely have little or not noticeable impact on the course of the virus. (Think of it in terms of being like AZT for the HIV, helped a little but took another ten years before drugs emerged that really worked.) Having doubts that any treatment will emerge in a meaningful way before the virus runs its course.

P.S. Wear a mask when in any enclosed public space…please?!

1 Like

*Maybe a simple tally. From Boots on the ground.
#1. Know anybody that has had the virus?
#2. If yes
A. did they survive it?
or
B. Died from it?
Feel free to add any notes on either A. or B. They will be kindly read.
Such as; If they survived, how? Hospitalized? Or at Home? And how are the fairing now? Fully recovered?
Or if died;
Was it from the virus alone? … or had been immune compromised before coming down with the virus.

** I know of one victim so far. Male: 68
#1. Came down with it in Thailand. Mid Nov. 2019
A. Survived. Quarantined and recovered in place. Hotel room.
. Two weeks of flue like symptoms. Recovered to what he considers his normal health.
Side note Also has Parkinson’s disease.

                                          Thank You   C.s.
 ....   global-health-effects-on-markets-and-mining-stock    .....

     **“In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity.” –  **Sun Tzu**

Who ever, among the large nations, comes out of this virus problem the fastest,
will be top dog.
If they hold little debt, are flush with gold, and hold others debt, will help …
…Or hold the patent on this virus (which is patented). you might hold the vaccination to it. $$

May you stay healthy, and wise.
C.S.

Early modeling has been shown time and again to inaccurately be a good predictive model. The health risks of this virus are truly devastating, but are increasingly being shown to be in the eldest part of our country’s population, especially those with multiple health problems. This is the area that should receive the most attention in containment, preventative measures, early monitoring and treatment. Disappointedly, there was one other ER doctor that had information removed by Youtube and it was not because of presenting non-factual information.

A quote from the write-up of Dr. Yealy, chair of UPMC ER who gave an interview Thursday on Ingraham follows below. It was a well done interview! The Youtube showing the interview has now been removed. A link to the article follows, which was a fairly accurate write-up. Dr. Yealy had a lot to say. Is Youtube removing newsworthy items to protect the public from “unapproved” news outlets? Smacks a bit of selected censorship:

A UPMC doctor on Thursday made a case the death rate for people infected with the new coronavirus may be as low as 0.25% — far lower than the mortality rates of 2-4% or even higher cited in the early days of the pandemic.

As of last Friday in the US, there were 11 deaths reported for the under 4 age group, and 18 deaths in the 5-17 age group. You have to scroll down to see the statistics. Risks are not proportional to a full science based re-assessment balanced with a host of other considerations. The overreaction and permanent damage being caused to the healthcare system and overall economy does not have a one-size-fits-all solution. Here’s the link to the demographic by age. There is much more info of interest presented as you scroll down the page:

https://www.cdc.gov/Coronavirus/2019-Ncov/Covid-data/Covidview

Covid-19 Mortality by age

One last link to share; Again check the link because there is a great amount of detailed information by state as you scroll down:

1 Like

*Morning: *

  • By now, I dare to say, all that read this form, have probably heard about a rush by the powers, to come up with a vaccine for this C.C.P produced Virus.*
  • To if it has merit, is up to your individual belief.*
  • When it comes to vaccinations, its safe to say, very few people follow the research and history of them. It’s a complicated science that bores most.*
  • We humans are more concerned of, what type of food to feed our pets, what tires to put on our auto, what fashion is in vogue. *
    Just give me the “shot” and let me get on with my life, is a freedom of our choice. … What if …it becomes mandatory ?
    It’s not just for you then, BUT ALL in your family tree. Grand parents, Spouses, teens,…(and think hard about this)… your grade school age, and infants?

Your choice. : What follows is a vaccine story. Https. Link is at the end.
This is just one story. I hope you don’t find it boring. C.s
_____*

APRIL 23, 2020

The Dengvaxia Disaster Was Twenty Years in the Making—What Will Happen With a Rushed COVID-19 Vaccine?

Print

Editorial by Lyn Redwood, President, Children’s Health Defense

Article that follows by the Children’s Health Defense Team

Vaccine development is a topic that is on the minds of everyone as the world grapples with ways to protect our health and the health of our loved ones from coronavirus. The team at Children’s Health Defense decided to write an article about Dengue Fever because an important part of medicine’s body of knowledge comes from the opportunity to learn from past mistakes.

Dengue fever is a common disease in more that 120 countries and, like Coronavirus, has been the target for a vaccine for many years. The development and licensure of Dengvaxia® vaccine by Sanofi spanned more than 20 years and cost more than 1.5 billion U.S. dollars. But the development of the vaccine turned out to be tricky. Dengue vaccine antibodies can also make the infection worse, especially in infants and children who have never been exposed to the virus. The virus may actually use the antibodies created by the vaccine to spread the virus throughout the body. So an infection with dengue — when your blood already has antibodies in it — can actually enhance the disease resulting in deadly complications.

Despite the fact that Sanofi tested Dengvaxia in several large clinical trials with more than 30,000 kids globally and published the results in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine , there were serious problems. According to epidemiologists who reviewed the data, the trials were riddled with “small inaccur­acies, missing data, and uncalculated risks.” Buried in those clinical trials was a disease enhancement safety signal, but industry and the World Health Organization (WHO) turned a blind eye to the problem, calling it a “theoretical possibility.” Dengvaxia was subsequently admini­ster­ed to thousands of children in the Philippines. It was reported last year that the deaths of approximately 600 children who received the vaccine are under investigation by the Public Attorney’s Office. The vaccine has been permanently banned in the country.

What is also very concerning is that even after Dengvaxia led to tragic injuries and deaths in the Philippines, the FDA moved forward and licensed the vaccine in the U.S. According to a May 1, 2019 press release, the agency granted the application Priority Review under a program intended to encourage development of new drugs and biologics for the prevention and treatment of certain tropical diseases. Such actions by the FDA raise serious questions about safety, not only for the Dengue vaccine, but for future vaccines in development.

Questions about vaccine safety are critically important since past research has documented the same concerns with disease enhancement with coronavirus vaccines. Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, Dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine worked on a vaccine for coronavirus in 2016 that stopped just short of commercial development. Despite having “tried like heck” to obtain funding to move his vaccine into clinical trials, Hotez told a U.S. Congressional Committee (on March 5) that coronavirus vaccines are scientifically challenging and have a unique potential safety problem—the same problem with immune enhancement that caused the deaths of children who received the dengue vaccine. When Hotez observed this immune pathology in his coronavirus laboratory animals, he thought, “Oh my God, this is going to be problematic.”

How can we be sure the rush to create a coronavirus vaccine will not produce another disaster like the dengue vaccine? Sadly, at least as of the time being, there is little assurance that it will not happen again. One of the issues that must be addressed are the conflicts of interest inherent to a system that allows vaccine patent royalties to flow to the same government agencies (HHS, NIH, FDA and CDC) that are responsible for research, approval, recommendations to use vaccines, safety surveillance and compensation for injuries.

When automobiles were found to have preventable and fatal defects, consumer advocate Ralph Nader’s book, Unsafe at Any Speed , led to congressional hearings and ultimately the creation of an independent watchdog safety agency. To assure that vaccine safety becomes a priority, we must step back and review each step of the development, review, approval, safety surveillance and compensation process. It is time for President Trump to renew his plan to create a vaccine safety commission to make sure that the process has a review conducted by a multidisciplinary, independent watch dog team before the approval of a coronavirus vaccine.

The Dengvaxia Disaster Was Twenty Years in the Making—What Will Happen With a Rushed COVID-19 Vaccine?

By the Children’s Health Defense Team

For several weeks, Dr. Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates have been beating the drum about a COVID-19 vaccine, seeking to keep the world’s coronavirus optics focused on a medical intervention that Gates acknowledges to be risky enough to require indemnification against lawsuits. The two are casting a COVID-19 vaccine—which they speculate could be ready in as little as 18 months—as the passport for a return to “normalcy.” The two opinion leaders’ gambit seems to be backfiring among people savvy enough to understand that Fauci’s and Gates’ organizations, pocketbooks and agendas are driving the rush for an indemnified vaccine. Other Americans may be too distracted by the historically unprecedented lockdown, however, to think through the safety issues raised by a potential COVID-19 vaccine.

… the Philippines’ mass dengue vaccination program—implemented with undue haste—not only killed children but provoked protests, criminal investigations, indictments, revocation of the vaccine’s license in that country and a plummeting of parental confidence in vaccine safety from 82% to 21%.

Americans would be well advised to revisit a virus-and-vaccine cautionary tale that briefly captured front-page attention a year ago. In April 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Sanofi Pasteur’s Dengvaxia vaccine, joining 19 other countries in granting regulatory approval to the world’s first dengue vaccine. The FDA gave its green light not long after the Philippines—the first country to roll out the vaccine widely—witnessed hundreds of distressing hospitalizations and deaths in 9-16 year-olds, representing a clear safety signal.

Dengvaxia’s fallout was so dramatic that it even overrode the U.S. media’s customary whiteout of vaccine safety problems. As summarized by National Public Radio (NPR), the Philippines’ mass dengue vaccination program—implemented with “undue haste”—not only killed children but provoked protests, criminal investigations, indictments, revocation of the vaccine’s license in that country and a plummeting of parental confidence in vaccine safety from 82% to 21%.

… in some individuals, subsequent infection with a different dengue virus can increase the risk of severe outcomes—a phenomenon known as “disease enhancement.”

Viral vaccines and “disease enhancement”

Given that an estimated 40% of the world’s population is at risk of mosquito-borne dengue infection, it is not surprising that the vaccine industry has had a dengue vaccine on its list for decades. There are four types of dengue virus that can trigger infection, albeit with a highly variable trajectory that ranges from asymptomatic infection or “mild and non-specific febrile illness” (together representing about 75% of cases) to “classic dengue fever” and, in an “occasional” subset, more severe outcomes such as plasma leakage, bleeding, shock or death. In children, experts believe the majority of dengue infections are subclinical. Researchers note that environmental and host immune factors play a significant role in shaping both susceptibility and outcomes.

Natural infection with one type of dengue virus provides long-lasting protection against the same type but only short-term protection against the other three varieties. The vexing result is that, in some individuals, subsequent infection with a different dengue virus can increase the risk of severe outcomes—a phenomenon known as “disease enhancement.” In a 2018 review, researchers listed reports of “enhanced illness” resulting from influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), Zika, West Nile virus, dengue and coronavirus—and emphasized that either infection or vaccination could produce this response.

In 2018, the WHO’s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety reviewed some of the deaths associated with Dengvaxia but stated that it could not determine whether the vaccine was causally related to the “vaccine-related immune enhancement.” This disingenuous conclusion flies in the face of decades of evidence showing some viral vaccines to be capable of “subverting” the immune system and provoking “exacerbated illness.” It is doubtful that WHO or Sanofi are unaware of this phenomenon, which numerous publications acknowledge as a “major obstacle” for the development of safe dengue and other viral vaccines. After the problems in the Philippines, however, Sanofi’s global medical director asserted that “In hindsight . . . Sanofi wouldn’t do anything differently.”

A dengue expert who develops vaccines for the U.S. military issued warnings about Dengvaxia’s risks ahead of time—vainly cautioning that vaccinating 9-16 year-olds who were “seronegative” or “dengue-naive” at baseline (that is, had never before been exposed to dengue) was likely to significantly augment their lifetime risk of severe disease when later exposed to dengue. (About 21% of vaccinees were seronegative.) Why did this industry insider—who has been a paid dengue vaccine consultant to Takeda, Merck, Sanofi Pasteur and SmithKlineBeecham—voice these concerns and condemn international health institutions for unethical, unscientific and “contorted explanations” that “fail[ed] to identify breakthrough dengue disease in vaccinated subjects as serious adverse events”? As he pointed out in numerous letters and articles, the potential for vaccine-enhanced dengue disease was readily apparent in Dengvaxia’s clinical trials, but both Sanofi and WHO chose to ignore the evidence.

Belatedly—a year and a half after the launch of the Philippines’ disastrous vaccination campaign—Sanofi announced that “new information” was prompting the company to declare that “vaccination should not be recommended” for seronegative individuals of any age. Repackaging Dengvaxia as a vaccine solely for individuals who have had at least one laboratory-confirmed bout of dengue is easier said than done, however, because many mild dengue infections go undiagnosed and undocumented.

The dengue vaccine pipeline

Sanofi reluctantly revised its recommendation to provide Dengvaxia only to individuals with evidence of past infection, which “leaves a substantial unmet need” that other dengue vaccine developers appear only too eager to exploit. Although Sanofi’s formulation—which took two decades and two billion dollars to develop—is the first dengue vaccine ever to make it out of the pipeline and into the marketplace, two other vaccines (TAK-003 and Butantan-DV) are currently undergoing late-stage clinical trials in Asia/Latin America and Brazil, respectively.

Dengue vaccine development has been marked by strong for-profit industry involvement. In addition, there has been “wide participation and co-ownership” by U.S. government institutions in dengue vaccine research and development, even though dengue disease poses little threat on the U.S. mainland. With dengue-endemic areas limited to Puerto Rico and a few offshore territories and protectorates, HHS—the umbrella agency for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the CDC and the FDA—owns 65 dengue-vaccine-related patents, dwarfing the 19 owned by Sanofi and the 12 and 4 owned by GlaxoSmithKline and Merck, respectively. All of the private companies involved in dengue vaccine development share patents with U.S. government agencies; meanwhile, very few patent applications have been filed in developing countries.

CDC scientists designed and constructed the TAK-003 vaccine and then licensed it to Japan’s Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Asia’s largest pharmaceutical conglomerate. However, preliminary analyses of the clinical trial results suggest that TAK-003 may suffer from similar problems as Dengvaxia, providing “unbalanced protection among the four types of dengue” that could “increase the risk of severe disease after exposure to a second type of the virus.” Takeda plans to apply for approval in dengue-endemic countries anyway.

Some experts are placing their bets on the third finalist, Butantan-DV, developed by none other than NIAID. NIAID has sponsored Butantan-DV clinical trials in Brazil since 2013, licensing its vaccine technology to Brazil’s Butantan Institute and launching the most recent trials in 2016. Not content to lurk in the background, NIH and NIAID have taken pains to call attention to their role in the vaccine’s development; publications presenting clinical trial results have titles referring to the “National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases tetravalent dengue vaccine” and the “National Institutes of Health dengue vaccine.” In studies published to date, investigators only monitored adverse reactions for 21 days.

Mosquito versus needle

The Dengvaxia experience—involving a skewed immune response and enhanced risks—raises questions “applicable to all dengue vaccine candidates” and a number of other viral vaccines. One not-often-discussed consideration pertains to the “considerable differences between a wild-type [dengue virus] delivered by a mosquito versus needle administration of a vaccine,” which have the potential to elicit different immune responses. Instead of acknowledging these vaccines’ potentially unconquerable risks, why not focus on training health care workers in the provision of the supportive care known to be “very effective when delivered by experienced practitioners”? Even in severe cases of dengue characterized by vascular permeability and fluid loss, practitioners who “accurately and rapidly” replace fluids can stabilize patients’ condition—“and rather quickly”—with the result that “the vascular permeability phenomenon abruptly disappears.” In addition, fruitful avenues of research could include studying the environmental and immune system factors associated with the minority of cases that involve more severe dengue outcomes.

With vaccine damage occurring in association with many different vaccines, it is unclear why so many individuals and organizations jumped on the anti-Dengvaxia bandwagon last year, but—with a rushed COVID-19 vaccine in the works—their words of warning are worth heeding. As NPR noted, “the debacle in the Philippines offers a key lesson for governments and manufacturers when it comes to approving and selling new vaccines: Slow down.” The dengue expert who presciently warned about Dengvaxia’s dangers put it this way:

*Dengvaxia-enhanced disease has created a major ethical dilemma for the vaccine community, an enduring public health management crisis, and legal nightmare. Vaccines should not harm recipients, directly or indirectly. WHO and the manufacturer owe the customer a safe product.
From. …*The Dengvaxia Disaster Was Twenty Years in the Making—What Will Happen With a Rushed COVID-19 Vaccine? • Children's Health Defense

1 Like

Mike G.
Very informed posting and statistics. Mike.

The second article “Coronavirus Desease 2019 (COVID-19)
Had a honest paragraph along the bottom of the page:
; Among 2,028 hospitalized adults with information on underlying medical conditions, (( “90.6%)) “had” at least one reported underlying medical condition!!!
the most reported were hypertension”” , obesity, chronic metabolic disease, and cardiovascular disease.
(Now do you think" being quarantined at home! , is helping any of those symptoms). Do yourself and your loved ones a favor, get out in nature,
smile at her, eat good food, enjoy your people, and remember worry is optional.
… And be kind… C.s.

1 Like
1 Like

So far just ! case??? And he is still alive.

From a earlier posting: **
*Maybe a simple tally. From Boots on the ground.
#1. Know anybody that has had the virus?
#2. If yes
A. did they survive it?
or
B. Died from it?
Feel free to add any notes on either A. or B. They will be kindly read.
Such as; If they survived, how? Hospitalized? Or at Home? And how are the fairing now? Fully recovered?
Or if died;
Was it from the virus alone? … or had been immune compromised before coming down with the virus.

** I know of one victim so far. Male: 68
#1. Came down with it in Thailand. Mid Nov. 2019
A. Survived. Quarantined and recovered in place. Hotel room.
. Two weeks of flue like symptoms. Recovered to what he considers his normal health.
Side note Also has Parkinson’s disease.

I can add 1# more victim to the Virus tally.
A 47 year old single healthy male. (bikes 6miles to and from work when weather permits) Caught C.C.P. V. after a Company meeting in Arizona.
He does not know the source? Before he left? Meetings? or on the flights there or on way back?
He said he came down with fever, fatigue, headache, about 3rd day home.
He was down and out for almost 2 weeks. Was not hospitalized, did talk
to his doctor. He was not tested. Took same precautions as the flue.
He is now back at work doing well. He did say ; " It was a ass kicker"!!

 ......C.s.....

Appears to finally be a cheap drug that actually reduces mortality for COVID. The randomized trial research paper hasn’t been released/no peer review yet however so some caution is advised. (This is probably the real deal since nobody will be making money from using this drug.)

2 Likes

This thread has been underutilized lately.
Let’s start discussing the collateral damage the mismanaged reopening of the economy has caused.
Domestically, many family owned enterprises will not reopen. The effects of the FED and Treasury’s efforts to rescue the economy are widely beneficial for the PM mining stock sector, however. Will much of the remaining stockmarket be as predictable?

Feb 9 mdmnwonk said, “There is a serious case of denial going on”. That same day MikeGold pointed out: “CCP is doing everything they can to silence things at the moment so indeed hard to figure out what is happening. All the numbers provided so far have been debunked; basically fiction. “ Feb 29 TDK posted this link and few people responded: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-28/gold-prices-plunge-by-the-most-intraday-since-june-2013

March 1 MikeGold noted, “Could be a really ugly week in the markets again. Perhaps the worst will be over for Gold?” It was quite evident that this discussion needed a new thread other than the “Other Mining Stocks” thread on which all this started and Cabezon broke the discussion off to a new thread titled Global Health Effects on Markets and Mining Stock .

It was March 1 that 1st posted,“The risks to individuals having their health adversely affected in the US are actually very low. Much of the media are creating panic by sensationalizing the perception of the health risk to individuals living in the US. The global economic risks are much greater and likely to persist.

…Covid19 is definitely impacting a growing list of global concerns. The one immediately greatest impact was witnessed this past week. Between margin calls, the widespread positions in ETFs and Funds and the use of options. It is no wonder the algorithms took over the trades. Puts on the $SPX and other Indexes put the final knife in the majority of positions being held by individual investors.

Again I would recommend reviewing the repost of “Crikey” subtitled “Things That Make You go Hmmm…” for a better understanding of what has been happening.
https://www.gowebcasting.com/events/precious-metals-summit-conferences-llc/2019/11/12/crikey-what-s-going-on-with-gold-by-grant-williams/play/stream/28893
Looking back on history puts things in a different perspective. The psychology moving the markets is much the same, even though the differences in particular forces are different. At least that’s my perspective of where things are at with PMs and what investors may be in for short and longer term.”

Again, MikeGold warned, “It is going to get a lot uglier before it gets better.” I agreed and added, “This will be quite alarming given the level of global economic news coverage blamed on COVID-19 which is only the catalyst initiating the event. Do not underestimate how this will effect world economy.“

And so it goes. There is so much data, data mismanagement and misreporting, and progress made that is truly having an effect global health policy decisions. It is appropriate putting the health and well-being of community and public as a priority.

That was one focus of this tread. The other focus is the effect this CCP Coronovirus is having on Markets. We still have a forum thread focusing on on Mining Stocks, so some of this discussion may tend to drift a bit between the two threads, Genuinely interested in hearing everyone’s perspective on what they are seeing and experiencing, but would like to steer away from political points of view as much as possible, China has changed that goal, as have many other events driving narratives in the news. Let’s try to stay focused on what the effect the virus and lockdowns have done, progress made, and the best path forward.

There is an undeniable rise in covid cases … is it important? There have been 25 million tests performed. One would expect more “case” as a result of more tests. Now that tests are available, one does not have to be so sick that a trip to the ER is needed in order to receive a test. Anyone feeling sick may be tested, even if it is a less severe case that can likely be treated conservatively at home. Not all new cases are requiring hospitalization or resulting in death.
Is reporting a percentage rise valid to report after mitigation results in a sharp decline of “cases”, or should one look at raw numbers?

I would argue that the only important stats to follow are hospitalizations and deaths. It is unlikely there will be an elimination of all risk. The reason for the lockdown was to assure hospitals would not be overrun all at once with severely ill patients needing acute care in a hospital setting. That scenario has passed in many areas. It is true the CCP coronavirus has limited treatment options and no vaccines. No one is denying this is a very dangerous virus with far reaching detrimental effects to global health and the global economies. There are always risks to be mitigated, but zero risk is an unattainable goal. Thankfully we live in a country where so much new information is available for individuals to take responsibility for minimizing risks suitable to the individual.

Lately there are the two extremes in the MSM. The press either overly sensationalizes the percentage rise of cases or overlooks the prudent and reasonable precautions to take from a public health policy perspective. I would not expect someone with young children and/or elderly relatives living in the same household to adhere to the same precautions as an 18-40 year old just returning to the workforce. Someone living in an area of known outbreak spikes would naturally feel compelled to use extra care in protecting themselves and not spreading the virus. The effects of this virus will be long lasting and devastating for far to many people. Officials should avoid making the indirect and direct harm on health and well-being from the economic destruction that appears to be unfolding greater than the direct harm from the virus. Much of the economic destruction is preventable.

1 Like

Just some follow up on using the steroid Dexamethasone for COVID.

The pre-print non peer review paper is out: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.22.20137273v1.full.pdf

I guess I’m not impressed at all. As is usually the case, press releases over state the benefits.

It is in a nutshell: Overall, 454 (21.6%) patients allocated
dexamethasone and 1065 (24.6%) patients allocated usual care died within 28 days .

21.6% vs 24.6%. Should we be impressed? No…not even sure that is statistically significant but they say it is.

It appears there is some benefit if taken right at the correct time in the course of the disease with the right dosage. It is very likely harmful(excess deaths recorded) if taken too soon. Almost all the benefit was shown for patients on ventilators which is odd/suspect. The death rate on ventilators in the U.K. following the usual treatment is very high compared to other countries so seeing improvement using the steroid may simply be helping when bad protocols are being followed to begin with. Note that no benefit was found in other studies done on the steroid in China and it also had no effect on MERS and SARS patients.

Back to waiting for the vaccine.

1 Like

A lot of new information being compiled all the time regarding the CCP Coronavirus:

Assessment of Evidence for COVID-19-Related Treatments: Updated 6/25/2020

The information contained in this evidence table is emerging and rapidly evolving because of ongoing research and is subject to the professional judgment and interpretation of the practi- tioner due to the uniqueness of each medical facility’s approach to the care of patients with COVID-19 and the needs of individual patients. ASHP provides this evidence table to help practi- tioners better understand current approaches related to treatment and care. ASHP has made reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy and appropriateness of the information presented. However, any reader of this information is advised ASHP is not responsible for the continued currency of the information, for any errors or omissions, and/or for any consequences arising from the use of the information in the evidence table in any and all practice settings. Any reader of this document is cautioned that ASHP makes no representation, guarantee, or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy and appropriateness of the information contained in this evidence table and will bear no responsibility or liability for the results or consequences of its use.

AHFS Clinical Drug Information® is now available for a 90-day trial period. Take a survey (https://bit.ly/ahfscdi) to get access. ASHP’s patient medication information is available at http://www.safemedication.com/.

Visit our website for the latest information on current drug shortages.
Select entries were updated on 6/25/2020; these can be identified by the date that appears in the Drug(s) column.

1 Like

COVID-19 COULD CAUSE A DIFFERENT DISEASE IN PREVIOUSLY HEALTHY PEOPLE

The coronaviruses responsible for the current and previous outbreaks share a similar way of getting into cells. The now-familiar protein spikes on the surface of the virus attach to ACE2 receptors are abundant in lung, kidney and islet cells in the pancreas. It is proposed that once in islets, Covid-19 disrupts normal cell function leading to abnormalities in the pathways that maintain blood glucose through insulin secretion. It is also possible that cell invasion leads to acute inflammation that kills islet cells.
Covid-19 could cause a different disease in previously healthy people

GUT REACTION
Children and young adults are less likely to develop symptomatic Covid-19, although infection readily occurs in young people with equally high viral loads in the airway, suggesting that they can certainly infect others. In contrast, people of older age and those with pre-existing chronic conditions are highly at risk and very likely develop symptomatic, severe disease.

If we consider the gradient of the severity of the disease, children are at one end, and the elderly and patients with chronic conditions are at the other end.

HOW YOUR INTESTINES MAY AFFECT THE SEVERITY OF COVID-19

I found the above linked site intriguing and full of information. It has much more information than the other link in my previous post with the same title on many aspects of COVID-19. Well worth exploring. Sorry for having to edit this post to catch the correct link. The website has much on it.
WHO IS PREDISPOSED TO SERIOUS COVID-19?

WHAT CONDITIONS ARE LINKED TO SEVERE COVID-19?

HOW DOES THE BODY FIGHT COVID-19 INFECTION?

A BASIC HUMAN BEHAVIOR HAS BEEN UPENDED BY COVID-19

THE ORIGINAL SARS VIRUS DISAPPEARED. HERE’S WHY COVID-19 WON’T DO THE SAME.
EZ

1 Like

This about sums it where we are at now:

2 Likes

You know, if you Americans wanted to build a wall between US and Canada, not too many Canadians would object. Just saying :wink:

Things that make you go “Hmmm” …

Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine Cut Death Rate Significantly in COVID-19 Patients, Henry Ford Health System Study Shows

July 02, 2020

DETROIT – Treatment with hydroxychloroquine cut the death rate significantly in sick patients hospitalized with COVID-19 – and without heart-related side-effects, according to a new study published by Henry Ford Health System.

In a large-scale retrospective analysis of 2,541 patients hospitalized between March 10 and May 2, 2020 across the system’s six hospitals, the study found 13% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine alone died compared to 26.4% not treated with hydroxychloroquine. None of the patients had documented serious heart abnormalities; however, patients were monitored for a heart condition routinely pointed to as a reason to avoid the drug as a treatment for COVID-19.

The study was published today in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, the peer-reviewed, open-access online publication of the International Society of Infectious Diseases (ISID.org).

Patients treated with hydroxychloroquine at Henry Ford met specific protocol criteria as outlined by the hospital system’s Division of Infectious Diseases. The vast majority received the drug soon after admission; 82% within 24 hours and 91% within 48 hours of admission. All patients in the study were 18 or over with a median age of 64 years; 51% were men and 56% African American.

“The findings have been highly analyzed and peer-reviewed,” said Dr. Marcus Zervos, division head of Infectious Disease for Henry Ford Health System, who co-authored the study with Henry Ford epidemiologist Dr. Samia Arshad. “We attribute our findings that differ from other studies to early treatment, and part of a combination of interventions that were done in supportive care of patients, including careful cardiac monitoring. Our dosing also differed from other studies not showing a benefit of the drug. And other studies are either not peer reviewed, have limited numbers of patients, different patient populations or other differences from our patients.”

Zervos said the potential for a surge in the fall or sooner, and infections continuing worldwide, show an urgency to identifying inexpensive and effective therapies and preventions.

“We’re glad to add to the scientific knowledge base on the role and how best to use therapies as we work around the world to provide insight,” he said. “Considered in the context of current studies on the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, our results suggest that the drug may have an important role to play in reducing COVID-19 mortality.”

The study also found those treated with azithromycin alone or a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin also fared slightly better than those not treated with the drugs, according to the Henry Ford data. The analysis found 22.4% of those treated only with azithromycin died, and 20.1% treated with a combination of azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine died, compared to 26.4% of patients dying who were not treated with either medication.

“Our analysis shows that using hydroxychloroquine helped saves lives,” said neurosurgeon Dr. Steven Kalkanis, CEO, Henry Ford Medical Group and Senior Vice President and Chief Academic Officer of Henry Ford Health System. “As doctors and scientists, we look to the data for insight. And the data here is clear that there was benefit to using the drug as a treatment for sick, hospitalized patients.”

Overall, hospital system patients in the study experienced an 18.1% in-hospital mortality rate. Regardless of treatment, mortality was highest in:

Patients older than 65,

Patients who identified as Caucasian,

Patients admitted with reduced oxygen levels,

Patients who required ICU admission.

Patients who died commonly had serious underlying diseases, including chronic kidney and lung disease, with 88% dying from respiratory failure. Globally, the overall mortality from SARS-COV-2 is estimated to be approximately 6% to 7%, with mortality in hospitalized patients ranging between 10% and 30%, according to the study. Mortality as high as 58% has been seen among patients requiring ICU care and mechanical ventilation.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, hydroxychloroquine (also known as hydroxychloroquine sulfate) is a U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA)-approved arthritis medicine that also can be used to prevent or treat malaria. It is available in the United States by prescription only. The drug is sold under the brand name Plaquenil and it is also sold as a generic medicine. It is commonly used by patients with arthritis, lupus or other rheumatic conditions.

Dr. Zervos also pointed out, as does the paper, that the study results should be interpreted with some caution, should not be applied to patients treated outside of hospital settings and require further confirmation in prospective, randomized controlled trials that rigorously evaluate the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine therapy for COVID-19.

“Currently, the drug should be used only in hospitalized patients with appropriate monitoring, and as part of study protocols, in accordance with all relevant federal regulations,” Dr. Zervos said.

Henry Ford Health System, as one of the region’s major academic medical centers with more than $100 million in annual research funding, is involved in numerous COVID-19 trials with national and international partners.

Henry Ford Health System is currently also involved in a prophylactic hydroxychloroquine study: “Will Hydroxychloroquine Impede or Prevent COVID-19,” or WHIP COVID-19. The study is a 3,000-person, randomized, double-blinded look at whether hydroxychloroquine prevents healthcare and frontline workers from contracting the COVID-19 virus. The WHIP COVID-19 team is working on expanding study sites while there is a lull in the number of COVID-19 cases in Southeast Michigan. This is in preparation for a potential increase of COVID-19 cases as Fall flu season approaches, with additional sites available for convenient enrollment of healthcare workers and first responders. The WHIP COVID-19 team is also taking this gift of time to reach out to other areas of the world that are seeing a blossoming of cases: Brazil and Argentina. There are currently 619 people enrolled in the study, out of a target of 3,000.

https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study