Forum Replies Created
The following is translated from the Portuguese using Google translate – :
The Health Secretariat of Itajaí informs that the prophylactic treatment with ivermectin is still available to the entire population in the municipality’s Centreventos. Whoever took the first dose can request the second and third by presenting a prescription. Those who have completed the cycle can still continue the treatment. On-site service is from 8 am to 6 pm, Monday to Friday. It is also possible to withdraw the medicine in health units and centers.
Altogether, more than 140 thousand people have already joined the preventive treatment to COVID-19, totaling more than two million pills delivered. The dosage of ivermectin is indicated after medical evaluation, depending on the person’s weight, and should be taken every 15 days. The intention is that the doses maintain the plasma level of the drug in the person’s body during the pandemic months.
To start the treatment, the resident must inform the personal data, such as full name, date of birth, CPF, weight, mother’s name and address. Whoever has started the medication can withdraw the other doses by presenting the prescription. The fourth and fifth doses of ivermectin are also being delivered to residents who are interested in continuing preventive treatment.
Despite the treatment, the Municipality of Itajaí still reinforces the importance of the population maintaining social isolation whenever possible and all preventive measures, such as hand hygiene, cough etiquette, not participating in agglomerations, among others.
The website is:
I too think the intentional release claim is overstated, but accidental release is plausible. I scanned her article and this is an early read of what it has to say – not a deep dive.
The authors speak of Gain of Function research and reference structural and genetic features that suggest this. The paper contains many of the charts shared by Dr. Mayer earlier here at PP regarding the genomes of related viruses. She (and colleagues) think that RAtG13 is a fraudulent sequence – i.e. not from nature – entered into the virus data base as misdirection to create the impression that the SARS Cov-2 bat derived sequences are from a naturally occurring virus. BTW, others have expressed similar skepticism. Dr Mayer did raise the issue that the RAtG13 sequence was the find of the century and that it is curious that the lab sat on it since 2013, releasing it only after the outbreak. The article authors instead focus on two other sequences (ZC45/ZXC21) that Dr. Mayer shared on this site (with emphasis on ZC45 as the possible bat template).
The authors consider it dubious that the pangolin is an intermediate species for the receptor biding domain. They note that the putative pangolin sequence was released after the outbreak. They claim no coronaviruses have been detected in Malaysian pangolins smuggled into China and that binding to receptors in the pangolin is significantly weaker than for human ACE-2. (However, in a forum on this site, Dr, Mayer said he was aware of pangolins smuggled into China that were very sick.)
They describe the two Spike protein sub units and discusses that one subunit is very similar to that in original SARS. They describe and discounts two possible ways this “swap” could have evolved naturally.
The paper then proposes that certain restriction enzyme sites were strategically used to swap in and test genetic sequences for various receptor binding domains in the spike protein sequence.
Like others, the authors zero in on the insertion of a unique furin cleavage site of the S protein that does not exist in other coronaviruses of the same type. Furthermore, they think it is significant that of the 6 codon options for the amino acid arginine, the codons for these residues at the furin cleavage site are the least frequently occurring in nature and are not used to code for arginine in the rest of the SARS Cov-2 genome. They ague that the furin cleavage site is unlikely to have arisen through serial passage of the virus in cells but instead through laboratory manipulation.
The paper then delineates a proposed synthetic route to engineer the SARS Cov-2 virus rapidly. I would refer to this as a hypothesis. Someone with deeper expertise wound need to weigh in on whether it is airtight.
This is the site for America’s Frontline Doctors who held the summit in DC. Notice the word summit at the end before the .com extension.
The site you have posted is different. The site was built on WordPress. Dr. Stella Immanuel, who is featured on the site you posted, was at the DC summit and she does practice in Texas.
Here is the new site for America’s Frontline Doctors.
Yes, this all appears very targeted and systematic.
This article that questions whether financial conflicts of interests are influencing COVID treatment in the US.
In France, after France’ most eminent virologist, Dr. Raoult, successfully treated patients with HCQ, the drug was promptly switched from OTC to prescription and medical authorities determined the treatment guidelines. This article discusses the clash with Dr. Raoult and the ties between Gilead Sciences and the French authorities.
And this article talks about the influence of drug companies on FDA.
I had an interesting experience. I asked my primary care doctor (through one of those web-based portals you now have to use to communicate) what would I be offered if I were to test positive for COVID. The written response was “supportive care” and Remdesivir plus steroids if I were admitted to hospital. That was not unexpected but nevertheless, inadequate. I did not know at the time that the doctors hands were tied because the state pharmacy board was refusing to dispense off-label for COVID. I decided to bring it up in person at my upcoming physical.
Then the censorship of the group, Americas Front line Doctors happened and this created a public uproar, and the pharmacy board was made to retract (for now). I then recontacted my doctor to say that with the change in dispensing, I wanted to discuss early treatment options at my next physical. I attached two reviews of the data on Zn and HCQ, including Dr. Harvey Risch’s papers. When we spoke in person, I explained to the doctor that I care for my aging parents, that I needed to fight COVID if I got it and to avoid passing it to them, and that I was interested in early treatment Zn/HCQ protocol. The doctor admitted that an early course for 5+ days was perfectly reasonable, and that that the doctor had treated many patients with lupus without issue. I suspect the doctor was able to be candid with me when not on the portal interface.
Indeed, the efficacy of these drugs has been known a long time and some of these very studies were done by coronavirus researchers who now have amnesia and are touting experimental drugs they have worked on instead.
These articles help explain why:
Financial conflicts of interest from a little known law (Bayh-Dole Act) could explain the HCQ debacle:
Article about potential financial conflicts of interest in setting COVID-19 treatment guidelines – references Raoult
We really need a different structure. Start with a special prosecutor, then some criminal referrals, some very public trials, and then a reform of the entire process.
Somehow we need to expose the financial conflicts of interest between the study investigators and pharma, try them in the court of public opinion, and lace into our representatives for the criminal investigations. Initial thoughts, at least.
Have tried to assess what the conflicts of interest might be with respect to the saintly doctor but it is hard to figure out.
Looked at dollars for doctors website, but access stops at 2018. Peculiar timing given all the action in 2019.
Looked at patents and found the saintly Dr. listed as inventor on aspects of HIV (proteins etc). (How the heck do you get to be co-inventor of a natural substance?). So I wonder if some HIV therapies are directed against these – would there be a share in royalties?
There has to be a reason for a bureaucrat to be pushing a drug with such ho-hum results.