Tag Archives: Ivermectin

Did FDA Lose Its War On Using Ivermectin For COVID-19?!

Did the US FDA just lose its war against the use of ivermectin for COVID-19?! Take a look at the viral claims, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : FDA Lost Its War On Using Ivermectin For COVID-19!

People are claiming or suggesting that the US FDA just lost its war against the use of ivermectin for COVID-19!

Mary Talley Bowden MD : 🚨BREAKING:
FDA loses its war on ivermectin and agrees to remove all social media posts and consumer directives regarding ivermectin and COVID, including its most popular tweet in FDA history.

This landmark case sets an important precedent in limiting FDA overreach into the doctor-patient relationship.

Recommended : Study Shows 10X Ivermectin Cannot Prevent Severe COVID-19!

 

Truth : FDA + Plaintiffs Settled, Ivermectin Still Not Approved For COVID-19

Let’s take a closer look at the claims, and find out what the facts really are!

Fact #1 : Both Sides Agreed To Settle Lawsuit

Let me start by pointing out that neither side in this lawsuit actually lost the case, as both sides agreed on a settlement. That was stated in the Stipulation Of Dismissal (PDF), which was filed on 21 March 2024.

Fact #2 : Case Was Dismissed With Prejudice

The plaintiffs, Robert L. Apter, Mary Talley Bowden, and Paul E. Marik, agreed to dismiss “with prejudice” all claims in the case. That means they agreed to dismiss the claims forever.

This means that the settlement is final, and not subject to further action; and the plaintiffs are prohibited from bringing any other lawsuit based on the claim, absent a successful appeal to a higher court.

Fact #3 : FDA Agreed To Remove Some Posts

While some people are claiming or suggesting that the FDA agreed to all posts on the use of ivermectin against COVID-19, that’s not really accurate. The FDA only agreed to do the following within 21 days:

  • retire an old 2021 article called Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19, and delete and not republish all social media posts that link to the article; but the FDA retains the right to post a revised version,
  • delete and not republish its old  Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook posts from 21 August 2021, that read “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it“,
  • delete and not republish its old Instagram post from 21 August 2021, that read “You are not a horse. Stop it with the #ivermectin. It’s not authorized for treating #COVID“, and
  • delete and not republish its old Twitter post from 26 April 2022, which read, “Hold your horses, y’all. Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19.

Another article called Frequently Asked Questions was already retired by the FDA, and played no part in this settlement.

In short, the FDA agreed to remove an old article and some old social media posts about not using ivermectin to treat COVID-19. That said, all removed materials will be archived, as required by federal law.

Recommended : Dr. Pierre Kory Gets COVID-19, Despite Taking Ivermectin!

Fact #4 : Case Was Settled Without Admission Of Wrongdoing

According to Reuters, the three plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in 2022, stating that their reputations were harmed by the FDA campaign. Bowden lost admitting privileges at a Texas hospital, while Marik alleged he lost his positions at a medical school, and a hospital, for promoting the use of ivermectin against COVID-19.

But interestingly, this lawsuit appears to be settled without the FDA admitting to any wrongdoing, misconduct, or liability.

Neither this Stipulation of Dismissal nor the actions described herein shall constitute an admission or evidence of any issue of fact or law, wrongdoing, misconduct, or liability on the part of any party in this litigation.

In other words, the plaintiffs appear to have settled for the removal of an old article, and some old social media posts, without any change in FDA’s stance on ivermectin, or its use against COVID-19.

Overall, it seems to be a rather expensive way to remove an old article, and some old social media posts…

Fact #5 : Ivermectin Still Not Approved For Use Against COVID-19

It is important to point out that the FDA still has not approved or authorised the use of ivermectin in preventing or treating COVID-19. The FDA also pointed out that it has not stated that ivermectin is safe or effective for use against COVID-19.

Although FDA has approved ivermectin for certain uses in humans and animals, it has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19, nor has the agency stated that it is safe or effective for that use.

In addition, the NIH continues to strongly (AIIa) recommend against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.

Please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this fact check article out, and please SUPPORT our work!

Don’t forget to protect yourself, and your family, by vaccinating against COVID-19!

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Can Malaysia Hospitals Now Use Ivermectin For COVID-19?

Is the Malaysia Ministry of Health now allowing hospitals to use ivermectin “off-label” against COVID-19?

Take a look at the viral message, and find out what the facts really are!

Updated @ 2024-01-24 : Refreshed for the revival of this old hoax
Originally posted @ 2021-07-07

 

Claim : Hospitals Allowed To Use Ivermectin To Treat COVID-19!

This is the viral message that is circulating on WhatsApp, with a link to a FreeMalaysiaToday article, called “Hospitals can apply for ‘off-label use’ of Ivermectin, says health ministry“.

Woohoo!! GOOD NEWS!! IVERMECTIN is being recognised!!

Malaysia bucks the tide of heavy Pharma lobby and Approves IVERMECTIN!!

 

Truth : Hospitals Must Apply To Use Ivermectin To Treat COVID-19!

The viral message is using an actual FMT article to convey a FALSE narrative. Here are the facts…

Fact #1 : Hospitals Must APPLY To Use Ivermectin To Treat COVID-19

The Malaysia Ministry of Health (KKM) did not “allow” hospitals to use ivermectin as an “off-label” treatment of COVID-19.

They only said that hospitals can APPLY to the Drug Control Agency (DCA) for the “off-label” use of ivermectin.

KKM also said that the use of off-label medication “must be done in a monitored environment“.

Fact #2 : Off-Label Application Has Long Existed

The ability for hospitals to apply for off-label use of medications have long existed.

This permission to apply for off-label use isn’t something new, or exclusive to ivermectin.

Fact #3 : Patient Consent Is Also Required

As off-label use of medicine can be detrimental to the patient, it is important for the doctor to inform the patient of the risks and obtain his/her consent.

In 2012, KKM started introducing a patient consent form, which was updated in 2016, with the latest version issued on 11 March 2019.

The treating physician in the hospital is required to fully explain the risks to the patient, who must then consent to the off-label use of the medication before it can be administered.

The signed consent form is then kept as part of the patient’s record.

Fact #4 : Ivermectin Mechanism Of Action Has Not Been Determined

The person who wrote the fake message claimed that ivermectin acts against COVID-19 in 3 ways. Its mechanism of action is currently unconfirmed.

It has been PROPOSED that ivermectin acts by these mechanisms :

  • inhibiting the host cell’s importin alpha/beta-1 nuclear transport proteins
  • interfering with the attachment of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein
  • exhibiting anti-inflammatory properties

There is no evidence that ivermectin will disrupt virus replication, which occurs after the cell is infected.

There is also no evidence that ivermectin will “flush out the viral debris”, or that it is the dead virus that causes a cytokine storm.

And there is also no evidence that the (proposed) anti-inflammatory properties of ivermectin can heal tissue damage.

Fact #5 : COVID-19 Breathing Difficulties Caused By Pneumonia + ARDS

The fake news writer claims that ivermectin helps to “ease the air duct congestion“. It suggests that he/she falsely believes that COVID-19 creates asthma-like breathing difficulties.

Breathing difficulty in COVID-19 is caused by pneumonia and/or ARDS (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome).

COVID-19 causes damage to the blood vessels, causing them to fluid into your lungs. The fluid fills the air sacs in your lungs, which limits their ability to take in oxygen.

You start getting breathless and ARDS develops, leaving you unable to breathe on your own. This is when you require oxygen support, or mechanical ventilation.

Photo Credit : Oxford University

Fact #6 : Ivermectin Has Not Been Proven To Work Against COVID-19

Ivermectin has been shown to work against COVID-19 in vitro studies (labs studies), but does NOT improve clinical outcomes or prevent transmission.

That is why the WHO and practically the vast majority of health authorities around the world do NOT advocate using ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19.

Recommended : Latest Ivermectin COVID-19 Study : What Does It Really Say?

Fact #7 : Ivermectin Has Not Been Tested Against COVID-19 Variants

The fake news writer claims that with ivermectin “all those scary new variants don’t have to be scary anymore.

What he/she left out was the fact that ivermectin has NOT been tested against COVID-19 variants!

On the other hand, vaccines are being tested against COVID-19 variants, and we know that the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines offer robust protection against the Alpha and Delta variants.

Recommended : UK COVID-19 Vaccines Very Effective Against Delta Variant!

Fact #8 : Ivermectin Isn’t Necessarily Safe

The fake news writer claimed that “In 30 years of using ivermectin for humans, there have been minimal reports of adverse reactions.

That’s probably because no one has been stupid enough to self-medicate using ivermectin!

In February 2021, Julie Weber, President of the American Association of Poison Control Centers and the director of the Missouri Poison Center warned that people are getting poisoned by fake COVID-19 cures like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

The Missouri Poison Center also issued a warning :

There have been reports of intentional ivermectin overdoses which can cause serious symptoms such as seizures, coma, lung and heart problems.

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund.

Can Bak Kut Teh Herbal Soup Cause Liver Damage?!

Did an Australian study show that Bak Kut Teh herbal soup can cause liver damage?!

Take a look at what the study showed, and what the facts really are!

Updated @ 2023-11-24 : Refreshed after claims went viral again
Originally posted @ 2022-07-15

 

Study : Bak Kut Teh Herbal Soup Can Cause Liver Damage!

Australian scientists caused a ruckus in 2022 when their study alleged that the Asian herbal soup called Bak Kut Teh can cause liver damage.

The media excitedly jumped on it, with alarming titles to draw attention (and drive traffic?) :

Adelaide Now : Adelaide forensic expert issues safety warning over liver failure soup

ABC : Bak kut teh herbal soup may cause liver damage and interact with medication, study finds

Medical Xpress : Popular Malaysian soup can cause liver damage when mixed with medication

The Epoch Times : University Professor Warns of Risks Caused by Popular Chinese Soup

Says : Australian Researchers Find Bak Kut Teh Can Cause Liver Damage When Taken With Medicine

Recommended : Viral Video Proves Japanese Food Is Radioactive?!

 

Truth : Study Does Not Show Bak Kut Teh Causing Liver Damage!

Despite the alarming titles, there is no need to panic… because the study does NOT show the herbal soup causing any liver damage.

Here is a quick summary for those who just need to know the basics :

  1. It was a laboratory study, which means the results may not translate into actual effect in a living human being.
  2. What we eat is digested and broken down, so our body absorbs the nutrients and not the actual food. Hence, the study does not accurately replicate what happens in our body.
  3. They didn’t test bak kut teh… they only tested four soup bases used to make bak kut teh.
  4. The soup concentrations were unspecified, so it is unknown if the doses are equivalent to what our livers are subjected to after a meal.
  5. They did not test drug interactions, so it is amazing how so many media outlets claimed that the study showed that bak kut teh may interact with medication!

In short, this study does not show that bak kut teh causes liver damage. Neither does it show bak kut teh causing drug interactions of any kind.

I understand Professor Byard’s concerns about the “unknown” contents of these soup base preparations. Certain traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) have been associated with acute liver failure.

However, that isn’t so much a “bak kut teh” problem, but rather a problem with traditional Chinese medicine or Chinese herbal medicine.

For those who are interested in the details, please scroll down to the next section.

 

Why Study Does Not Show Bak Kut Teh Causing Liver Damage

Let’s start with the basics, and work our way through the Australian study.

Fact #1 : Study Was Conducted By Australian Scientists

First, the study was conducted by University of Adelaide and University of Melbourne scientists – Susan M. Britza, Rachael Farrington, Ian F. Musgrave, Craig Aboltins and Roger W. Byard.

It was published in the journal Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology, and you can read the study here.

Fact #2 : It Was A Laboratory Study

It is important to note that this was an in-vitro study – a laboratory study, not a clinical study.

In-vitro studies are important, but they cannot be extrapolated to make any conclusion about what actually happens in a human body.

For example, in-vitro studies have shown that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin have an inhibitory effect on the SARS-CoV-2 virus; but once tested in actual human beings – they were shown to have no clinical benefit.

In other words – what happens in a test tube, may not happen in an actual human being.

Read more : Did Study Show Pfizer Vaccine Altering Liver DNA In 6 Hours?!

Fact #3 : What We Eat Is Not What Our Body Absorbs

There is one big problem with doing in-vitro tests on food – what we eat is not what our body absorbs.

Food gets digested, and broken down into nutrients that are absorbed in our intestines. Even simple sugar gets broken down into glucose, fructose, galactose, maltose, sucrose, etc.

So soaking liver cells in a bak kut teh soup would most definitely not reflect what our liver cells actually experience after a bak kut teh meal.

In short, this study does not replicate what happens in our liver when we eat bak kut teh.

Fact #4 : There Are Many Types Of Bak Kut Teh

Bak Kut Teh is not so much a “herbal soup” as it is a pork soup dish. The name “bak kut teh” literally means “meat bone tea” in the Hokkien dialect, but there is no tea in it.

It is usually just a dish of pork ribs simmered for hours in a broth of common herbs and spices like star anise, cinnamon, cloves, dong quai, fennel seeds and garlic.

But there are many variants of bak kut teh. In Malaysia and Singapore where bak kut teh is most popular, there are at least four main “styles” :

  • Teochew style : light in colour, with more pepper and garlic
  • Hokkien style : darker and more fragrant, thanks to a variety of herbs and soy sauce
  • Cantonese style : includes medicinal herbs for a stronger flavoured soup
  • Klang style : a thick and sticky gravy, like a stew

On top of that, there are also chicken and beef versions of bak kut teh. Muslims, for example, love the chicken version, which is colloquially called chi kut teh, chi being short for chicken.

And the Malaysian town of Melaka serves a delicious beef bak kut teh, which is based on a unique black pepper soup with red fermented bean curd.

Fact #5 : They Tested Four Soup Bases

The Australian team were somewhat aware of the wide variety of bak kut teh soup bases. They tested four varieties :

  • Formulation 1 : Dried hawthorn
  • Formulation 2 : Goji berries, ginseng, bark, and dried mushrooms
  • Formulation 3 : Polygonatum odoratum, ligusticum chuanxiong, codonopsis pilosula, cinnamomum cassia, angelica sinensis, illicium verum, piper nigrum, and Eugenia caryophyllata
  • Formulation 4 : Spices, pepper and salt

It is important to note that instead of preparing bak kut teh like you and I would – with meat, vegetables, bean curd slices, etc., the researchers tested soups that were created only using the ingredients listed above.

In short, they did not actually test bak kut teh… they tested soups made from the ingredients above.

Fact #6 : Soup Concentration Was Unspecified

To prepare the four soups for testing, researchers added a sachet of each soup mix to boiling water (of unspecified quantity) for 5 minutes.

The concentration of each soup base was unspecified. They only listed the dilution factor. As such, it is quite impossible to draw any sort of conclusion from the results.

As any toxicologist will tell you – the dose makes the poison. This is why the concentration of any substance is critical in any study. Even water and oxygen – essential to human life to be sure – is toxic at high doses.

Fact #7 : Soups Were Prepared In 5 Minutes

It is important to point out that the soups the researchers used were prepared in just 5 minutes. Bak kut teh is usually prepared by simmering the meat in the soup for hours.

It would have been a good idea to prepare the soup bases like real bak kut teh soup, because boiling the soup for several hours could potentially break down toxins present in its ingredients.

In fact, it would have been better for the researchers to just buy real bak kut teh, instead of resorting to their soup bases prepared in just 5 minutes.

Fact #8 : They Tested Using HepG2 Liver Cancer Cells

It is also important to note that the researchers tested the soup bases by adding them to HepG2 cell cultures, not normal liver cells.

HepG2 is a hepatoblastoma (a type of liver cancer) cell line that was obtained from a 15 year-old boy suffering from liver cancer in 1975.

Now, there is nothing wrong with that – HepG2 is commonly used to test cytotoxicity of substances. Still, it must still be pointed out that HepG2 is not the same thing as normal liver cells.

In-vitro studies based on these cells should not be used to draw any conclusion, only used to drive further research.

Differences HepG2 Cells Normal Liver Cells
Cell Size 12-19 µm 15 µm
Cell Shape Polygonal Cube
Nuclei Single large nuclei
with 3-7 nucleoli
Two or more nuclei
Mitochondrial Content Low High
Smooth Endoplasmic Reticulum Poorly Developed High
No. of Chromosomes 50-60 46
DNA Content 7.5 pg ~6 pg
Genome Stability Unstable Stable

Fact #9 : Spices, Pepper + Salt Did Worst In Their Tests

What I found most interesting in their results was the fact that the most “toxic” soup was Formulation 4, which consisted of nothing more than spices, pepper and salt.

Formulation 4 showed the most significant toxicity to the HepG2 cell line with approximately 83% cell death before dilution (p < 0.0001) and persistent toxicity even with dilution 1:10 (15% ± 3.7, p = 0.023) and 1:1000 (14% ± 3.8, p = 0.024)

Well, that’s gonna worry fans of Kentucky Fried Chicken, which boasts 11 herbs and spices, including pepper and salt!

Jokes aside, this result suggest that common spices, pepper and salt are more toxic to HepG2 liver cells than the more fanciful bak kut teh preparations!

Fact #10 : They Did Not Test Drug Interactions

I’m not sure how this study touches on drug interaction, since they didn’t test the soup bases with common hepatotoxic drugs like paracetamol to see if there is a synergistic effect.

No matter how you slice and dice this study’s results, they tell us nothing about any possible interaction with other herbs / drugs.

Yet so many media outlets made the startling claim that the study showed that bak kut teh may interact with medication! Nowhere in the study does it say that!

It appears that most of these journalists probably did not even bother to read the study, and perhaps only paraphrased what other people were writing.

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Study Show Hydroxychloroquine Lowers COVID-19 Deaths?!

Did a new study just show that hydroxychloroquine lowers COVID-19 deaths?!

Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : Study Shows Hydroxychloroquine Lowers COVID-19 Deaths!

Some people are sharing an article by The Epoch Times, which claimed / suggested that a new study showed that hydroxychloroquine is associated with lower COVID-19 deaths. Here is an excerpt from that article by The Epoch Times:

Hydroxychloroquine Associated With Lower COVID-19 Mortality: Study

People who received hydroxychloroquine were less likely to die than those who did not, according to a new study.

Recommended : Did Mayo Clinic Admit Hydroxychloroquine Can Treat Covid?!

 

Truth : Study Does Not Show Hydroxychloroquine Lowers COVID-19 Deaths!

Let’s take a closer look at the new French study, and find out why it does not show that hydroxychloroquine really lowers COVID-19 deaths!

Fact #1 : Only First Study Was Withdrawn

First, I should point out that The Epoch Times article appears to be conflating two different studies of the same database of COVID-19 patients in France.

  1. Early Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin: A ‘Real-World’ Monocentric Retrospective Cohort Study of 30,423 COVID-19 Patients
    by Matthieu Million et. al. (archive link)
    Preprint posted on 4 April 2023
    Withdrawn on 7 June 2023
  2. Outcomes after early treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: An analysis of a database of 30,423 COVID-19 patients
    by Philippe Brouqui et. al. (archive link)
    Article posted on 30 October 2023

The first study was not peer-reviewed and was withdrawn by its authors who said that it should not be cited as reference for the project. The second study is by a different set of authors (with some from the first study), but was not withdrawn.

The authors have withdrawn this manuscript because analytic strategies for this project have changed. Therefore, the authors do not wish this work to be cited as reference for the project.

Recommended : Is FDA Refusing To Release Vaccine Myocarditis Results?!

Fact #2 : Study Looked At All Cause Mortality

Despite claims that the French study showed that hydroxychloroquine was “associated” with lower COVID-19 mortality (deaths), that was not what the study actually showed.

Instead of looking at COVID-19 deaths (mortality), the study authors chose to look at “all-cause mortality”. This is odd, because they had access to their medical records and pharmacy files, and a wealth of information including :

  • age range and gender
  • whether the patient was treated as outpatient / inpatient, or had ICU treatment
  • whether the patient received HCQ (hydroxychloroquine), AZ (azithromycin), or IVM (ivermectin)
  • COVID-19 virus variant
  • time of death
  • vaccination status
  • co-morbidities like obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, asthma, cancer, etc.

Why did this study look at “all-cause mortality” instead of “COVID-19 mortality”? Are we interested in whether hydroxychloroquine can cure COVID-19, or are we trying to see if it can cure common causes of death?

I’m sure it would be interesting to know that hydroxychloroquine may potentially be an elixir of immortality against common causes of death like heart disease, cancer, sepsis, stroke, accidents.

But the study, as it stands, does not tell us anything about hydroxychloroquine lowering the risk of COVID-19 deaths.

Recommended : Are mRNA Vaccines Contaminated With SV40 DNA?!

Fact #3 : Study Only Looked At First Six Weeks

For some reason, the study authors chose to only look at all-cause mortality within the first six weeks of a COVID-19 diagnosis.

Why six weeks? Do COVID-19 infections magically disappear after that? Not that we know of…

Why set a cut-off point at all? Why not just look at whether the patient survived COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin or regular treatment, period?

Fact #4 : RCTs Show Hydroxychloroquine Don’t Work

The study itself also pointed out that major randomised controlled trials (RCTs) like the RECOVERY and SOLIDARITY trials show that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) does not reduce mortality in COVID-19 patients.

It attempts to dismiss both trials as “late treatment trials” as randomisation occurred upon hospital admission, and that they used very high doses of HCQ – four times higher than the “recommended dose”.

The problem is – the French study does not itself show that their patients were receiving HCQ much earlier, or that they were even receiving the “recommended dose” of 600 mg.

There is no recommended dose of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. Its use in the RCT and French studies were “off-label”. So I really have no idea where this 600 mg dose is based on. The study authors did not appear to justify the use of this 600 mg “recommended dose”.

Even though the study claims that all 30K+ patients took 600 mg of HCQ per day, there is really no way to be sure of that because it was a retrospective study, and not a randomised controlled trial. In fact, there’s no way to know if they even took the drugs regularly, if at all.

Fact #5 : Study Shows Ivermectin Don’t Work

Interestingly, the French study actually showed that ivermectin slightly increased the risk of dying from ALL-CAUSES of death. I wonder why the study authors did not point that out…

Please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this fact check article out, and please SUPPORT our work!

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Why International COVID Summit III Criticised Vaccine!

Find out why the International COVID Summit III held at the European Parliament criticised the COVID-19 vaccines!

 

International COVID Summit III Is Official EU Parliament Event?!

People are sharing TikTok and Rumble videos of the International COVID Summit III, claiming that it is an official European Parliament conference criticising COVID-19 measures like lockdowns and vaccines!

FLCCC Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Pierre Kory, presents “The Global War on Ivermectin” to the European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium on day one of the International COVID Summit III.

International Covid Summit III – part 1 – European Parliament, Brussels 05.03.2023
International Covid Summit III – part 2 – European Parliament, Brussels 05.03.2023

EU Parliament COVID Conference Slams Pandemic Response

Speakers did not rule out the possibility that the pandemic was orchestrated by powerful outside actors, with various medical professionals from across Europe describing their first-hand experiences of negative health effects from vaccines.

Recommended : COVID vaccines have 1000X death rate than safe limit?!

 

International COVID Summit III : What Is That Really?!

Don’t be surprised if you never heard of the International COVID Summit III, especially when it’s been labelled as an official conference organised by the European Parliament!

Even I never heard of it, but after doing some research, this was what I discovered…

Fact #1 : This Was The First International COVID Summit

Interestingly, this conference was called International COVID Summit III, but I could find no reference to the two previous two conferences – the first International COVID Summit, and International COVID Summit 2 do not appear to exist!

What actually existed were the Global COVID-19 Summit, which was held on September 22, 2021; and the 2nd Global COVID-19 Summit which was held on 12 May 2022.

Both Global COVID-19 Summit 1 and 2 involved heads of states and governments, as well as heads of international organisations, NGOs, and industries across the world. There does not appear to be a third Global COVID-19 Summit yet.

So why would this International COVID Summit jump to its “third” iteration, when this was really the first time it was held? Could it be trying to mislead people into thinking that it was the third version of the Global COVID-19 Summit?!

Fact #2 : It Was Not An Official European Parliament Event

It is easy to see why people would believe the claim that the International COVID Summit III was an official European Parliament event. The videos and screenshots show a liberal use of the European Parliament logo, and accompanying statements suggest the same.

However, if you check the European Parliament website, you will not find International COVID Summit III listed at all. You also won’t find it in the European Parliament’s list of official events for May 2023:

Hearings : A committee is permitted to organise a hearing with experts, where this is considered essential to its work on a particular subject.

In May 2023, only one hearing was scheduled and has not yet occurred – Public Hearing on “Legal Migration; the skills and talent package”.

Workshops : Workshops are organised by the policy departments and enable members to put questions to and exchange views with experts on subjects associated with parliamentary business or subjects of current interest.

No workshops were held, or are scheduled for May 2023.

Other Events : All other public events organised as part of committee activities involving external speakers or experts.

There are two events scheduled for May 2023 – both on 23 May 2023. The first is called “LIBE to hold exchanges with two data protection authorities“. The second is “Exchange of views on the migrant shipwreck off to the Italian coasts“.

As far as I can tell – the International COVID Summit III was not an official European Parliament event.

Recommended : Did CDC Say COVID Vaccines Cause AIDS + Cancer?!

Fact #3 : The Summit Was Held In Room PHS 1A2

It took some digging, but I managed to trace the location of this event. It was not held in the grand plenary hall where the 705 Members of the European Parliament meet, of course.

Rather, the International COVID Summit III took place in Room PHS 1A2 in the Paul-Henri SPAAK building – one of the many rooms available for MEPs to use.

Interestingly, this room (officially Room 1A002) was named as the Anna Lindh Room in September 2003, in honour of Sweden’s murdered foreign minister.

Fact #4 : The Summit Was Hosted By ECR + ID Parliamentary Groups

The International COVID Summit III appears to be sponsored by several European Parliament Members from the ECR (European Conservatives and Reformists), and the Identity and Democracy (ID) groups.

That explains how this “summit” or “conference” was held within the European Parliament building, even though it was not an official or sanctioned event.

From the event itinerary, it appears that just five European Parliament Members attended the International COVID Summit III:

  • MR. IVAN VILIBOR SINČIĆ, Non-attached Member of the European Parliament – CROATIA
  • MRS. FRANCESCA DONATO, Non-attached Member of the European Parliament – ITALY
  • MR. MISLAV KOLAKUŠIĆ, Non-attached Member of the European Parliament – CROATIA
  • MRS. CHRISTINE ANDERSON, Identity and Democracy – GERMANY
  • MR. CRISTIAN TERHEȘ, European Conservatives and Reformists – ROMANIA

Obviously, speaking to those five MEPs do not constitute speaking to the European Parliament itself, since 700 other MEPs were not in the room, and it wasn’t even an official event!

On top of that, the event banner shows that they were not there as official representatives of the European Parliament, but as “co-hosting members” of the event…

Recommended : Did US + UK Create COVID-19 As Bioweapon?!

Fact #5 : It Was All Talk, No Action

The International COVID Summit ran for about 9 hours, from 9 AM until 6 PM, and featured a long list of the usual suspects. But despite many of them giving bombastic testimony, the summit / conference ultimately resulted in nothing.

Because it was not an official European Parliament meeting or event, it had absolutely zero effect. The summit organisers did not even think of asking the attendees to pass a motion or action plan of any kind.

From what I can tell – the entire “summit” consisted of allotted time for the speakers to speak to the attendees and a livestream, from within a European Parliament room.

Perhaps that was ultimately the purpose of this event – to give those speakers the patina of European Parliamentary approval? Perhaps that was all they needed. After all, people are already claiming on social media that those speakers were testifying to the European Parliament.

But if you made it this far, you already know that this is not true at all. Sadly, most people will not know that.

Please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this fact check article out, and please SUPPORT our work!

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | ScienceTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Dr. Medina Culver + AFLDS Sued For HCQ Death!

The family of a man who died after being treated with HCQ (hydroxychloroquine) and/or ivermectin just sued Dr. Medina Culver and the AFLDS for his alleged wrongful death!

 

Dr. Medina Culver + AFDLS Sued For HCQ Death!

In the first week of February 2023, the estate of Jeremy Parker sued Dr. Medina Culver – an osteopathic physician and Instagram influencer based in Henderson, Nevada, as well as the anti-vaccination group, America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS), for alleged wrongful death from the use of HCQ (hydroxychloroquine) and/or ivermectin to treat COVID-19.

According to This Is Reno, the lawsuit alleged negligence by both AFLDS and Dr. Culver for Jeremy Parker’s death a year ago – on 3 February 2022.

Based on information provided by America’s Frontline Doctors, Mr. Parker became convinced, along with several of his co-workers, that hydroxychloroquine was an effective treatment for COVID-19.

On or about August 26, 2021, Mr. Parker had a telemedicine visit with Dr. Culver, at which time Dr. Culver prescribed Mr. Parker with hydroxychloroquine and/or ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment or ‘preventative therapy.’

Dr. Culver never performed a physical examination of Mr. Parker.

According to the lawsuit, Jeremy Parker developed cold-like symptoms in late January 2022. He was later found dead on February 3, 2022.

The Washoe County coroner listed his official cause of death as “sudden in the setting of therapeutic use of hydroxychloroquine“.

Jeremy Parker’s family is now seeking damages in excess of US$30,000.

Recommended : Died Suddenly : Anti-Vaccination Movie Lies Exposed!

 

Why Dr. Medina Culver + AFLDS Was Sued For HCQ Death!

Dr. Robert Bruce Bannister, a retired University of Nevada medical school professor in Reno, submitted this statement in support of the lawsuit against Dr. Medina Culver and the AFLDS:

Hydroxychloroquine is a medication approved by the FDA for the treatment of malaria and some autoimmune diseases. It is not approved for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19.

Serious cardiac rhythm disturbances are known adverse reactions when taking hydroxychloroquine and the presence of certain cardiac rhythm/cycle variants are noted contraindications and reasons to be cautious when prescribing hydroxychloroquine.

He further stated that Jeremy Parker’s death may have been prevented “if Dr. Culver had performed a more thorough evaluation including a physical exam to evaluate his heart function, a blood pressure measurement, and an EKG to ensure he did not have an abnormality…

 

Jeremy Parker Is Not The First To Die From HCQ Treatment

Jeremy Parker is not the first, and he unfortunately won’t be the last, to die from HCQ (hydroxychloroquine).

After US President Donald Trump promoted hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine to treat COVID-19, many people believed him. Even people who should know better.

On 29 March 2020, an Indian doctor – Dr. Utpal Barman, died of a massive cardiac arrest after taking the hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (Z-Pak) combination that Donald Trump promoted.

Read more : Hydroxychloroquine Risk : Death From Cardiac Arrest!

While HCQ / hydroxychloroquine is considered safe to use in most people, it must be used with caution in patients with cardiac disease or other conditions that may increase the risk of QT prolongation:

  • cardiac arrhythmias,
  • congenital long QT syndrome,
  • heart failure,
  • bradycardia,
  • myocardial infarction,
  • hypertension,
  • coronary artery disease,
  • hypomagnesemia,
  • hypokalemia,
  • hypocalcemia,
  • or in patients receiving medications known to prolong the QT interval or cause electrolyte imbalances.

Females, geriatric patients, patients with diabetes, thyroid disease, malnutrition, liver impairment, or those who drink alcohol to excess may also be at increased risk for QT prolongation.

Hydroxychloroquine’s cardiotoxicity may be further exacerbated by pairing it with Z-Pak (Azithromycin).

In addition to known hepatotoxicity effects, Z-Pak (Azithromycin) can potentially cause cardiac problems like arrhythmias, and even prolong the QT interval.

That’s why the combination of HCQ and Z-Pak touted by Donald Trump is so dangerous for people to take, especially without prior medical examination to look for undetected heart disease or other risk factors.

Please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this fact check article out, and please SUPPORT our work!

Don’t forget to protect yourself, and your family, by vaccinating against COVID-19!

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Did Study Show Pfizer Vaccine Altering Liver DNA?!

Did a Swedish study show that the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine altered the DNA of human liver cells in just 6 hours?!

Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : Study Show Pfizer Vaccine Altering Liver DNA In 6 Hours!

The Expose is back again, with yet another “fakexpose” on the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. This time, they are recycling a February 2022 fake story that I fact checked earlier.

Here are selected excerpts from their long-winded article. Feel free to skip it, and head to the next section for the facts.

A Swedish study has demonstrated and confirmed that the mRNA in the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid injections infiltrates cells and transcribes its message onto human DNA within 6 hours, altering our own DNA.

The findings come after a previous study published in October 2021 from Sweden found the spike protein enters our cells nuclei and impairs the mechanism cells have to repair damaged DNA.

Read more : Did 800 People Quit Pfizer Vaccine Trial Over Death / Injury?!

 

Truth : Study Did Not Show Pfizer Vaccine Altering Liver DNA In 6 Hours

This is yet another example of vaccine fake news based on the intentional misinterpretation of a single scientific study.

Here is what you really need to know about this Lund University study… and The Expose.

Fact #1 : The Expose Is A Fake News Website

The Expose (formerly Daily Expose) is notorious for creating and propagating fake news on everything from COVID-19 to vaccines and the Ukraine war.

I investigated several articles they wrote, and they were all found to be completely false, or intentionally misleading.

Everything posted by The Expose must be considered fake news, until proven otherwise.

Fact #2 : Study Did NOT Say Pfizer Vaccine Alters Our DNA

First things first – the Lund University study is called Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line, and you can read it in its entirety here.

If you read just the discussion, you will note that the study authors actually pointed out that their study does NOT show that the Pfizer vaccine integrates with the liver cell DNA, or alters it in any way.

At this stage, we do not know if DNA reverse transcribed from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome.

To be clear, the study offers no evidence that the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine alters our DNA in any way or form.

Fact #3 : It Was A Laboratory Study

I should also point out the obvious fact that this was an in-vitro study – a laboratory study, not a clinical study.

In-vitro studies are important, but they cannot be extrapolated to make any conclusion about what actually happens in a human body.

For example, in-vitro studies have shown that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin have an inhibitory effect on the SARS-CoV-2 virus; but once tested in actual human beings – they were shown to have no clinical benefit.

In other words – what works in a laboratory, may not work in an actual human being.

Read more : Study Shows 10X Ivermectin Can’t Prevent Severe COVID-19!

Fact #4 : Study Was Based On Liver Cancer Cells

The casual reader of the Lund University study will not realise that Huh7 (or Huh-7) cells are not ordinary liver cells that you or I have.

Huh7 cells were derived from the liver tumour of a 57 year-old Japanese man, and are special because :

  • they are immortal liver cancer cells that can keep multiplying
  • they are highly-susceptible to Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection
  • they are genetically different, with an abnormal number of chromosomes (between 55 and 63, normal human cells have 46)

The Huh7 cell line is useful for the study of liver cancer and Hepatitis C, as well as drugs that may combat HCV; but it is important to understand that Huh7 cells are not representative of normal human cells.

Fact #5 : Huh7 Liver Cells Were Cultured In Plates

For a “more physiologically relevant study of viruses“, these Huh7 cells have to be cultured in a NASA-designed 3D Rotating Wall Vessel (RWV) bioreactor.

These RWV bioreactors create 3D aggregates of Huh7 cells that are more “similar in structure and function” to their in vivo counterparts, with “completely altered gene expression and differentiation patterns“.

In other words, these RWV-grown Huh7 cells look and behave differently, more like regular human cells compared to plate-cultured Huh7 cells.

For the record, the Lund University study used plate-cultured Huh7 cells, and not RWV-grown Huh7 cells.

There is nothing wrong with that, but we should keep in mind that these cells are not an ideal representation of human cells.

This is what a 24-cell culture plate looks like

Fact #6 : Normal Human Cells Don’t Produce LINE-1 Enzyme

The scientists chose to use these Huh7 cells because like many cancerous cells, they express (produce) the LINE-1 enzyme.

LINE-1 is a reverse transcriptase that converts mRNA into DNA, so it is not surprising that the study would show it converting mRNA from the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine into DNA. That is literally what it is meant to do.

Normal human cells have the LINE-1 gene, but it is not expressed. Normal human cells do not produce the LINE-1 enzyme, which is why they could not use regular human cells in this study.

That is also why it is inappropriate to use the Huh7 cell culture to evaluate how mRNA vaccines would actually work or behave in humans.

Fact #7 : Transcribed DNA Did Not Enter Nucleus

The study only looked at whether mRNA from the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine can be transcribed into DNA by the LINE-1 enzyme.

As the study showed – yes, it can… because that’s what the LINE-1 enzyme does. But the study does not show that the transcribed DNA entered the cell nucleus and altered human DNA.

While that is plausible, it would require another enzyme called integrase, that viruses produce, to move that DNA into the cell nucleus itself.

Without the integrase enzyme, the DNA transcribed by the LINE-1 enzyme will only float outside, and will never integrate with the DNA inside the cell nucleus.

Did Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Combine With DNA In Liver Cells?!

Fact #8 : mRNA Vaccines Do Not Modify Our Genes

An mRNA vaccine only contains a limited number of lipid nanoparticles containing those delicate mRNA instructions. So only a limited number of cells are involved in the vaccination process.

Even if it is somehow possible for the mRNA instructions from the vaccine to enter the cell nucleus and integrate with the DNA inside, it will only affect those cells.

Our cells die and are replaced by new cells all the time, so even if hypothetically the vaccine “infects” and modifies the DNA of a few hundred thousand cells, those cells will eventually die and be replaced by new cells without the modified DNA.

It is simply not possible for mRNA vaccines to modify our genes.

Fact #9 : Viruses Integrate With Cell DNA

Viruses like SARS-CoV-2 and HIV-1 (diagram below) integrate their genes with the host cell DNA, to hijack the cell and use it to produce copies of itself.

You can see how a typical RNA virus would infect a host cell, convert its RNA into DNA which is moved into the cell nucleus using the integrase enzyme.

HIV-1 virus cell infection, credit : Günther Witzany

Once inside, the viral DNA integrates with the host cell DNA, which gets transcribed into instructions for the cell to produce copies of the virus.

This is the same way how the SARS-CoV-2 virus infects our cells, to produce copies of itself to infect even more cells.

If you are truly worried about anything modifying your cell’s DNA, you should try to avoid viral infections like COVID-19. Better still – vaccinate yourself, and get protected against COVID-19!

Everything posted by The Expose must be regarded as FAKE NEWS, until proven otherwise.

Please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this article out, and supporting our work!

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Fact Check | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Can Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Change Our DNA?!

Did Swedish scientists just prove that the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine changes our DNA?!

Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Changes Our DNA!

Anti-vaccination and ivermectin proponents have gone bananas over the new study from the Lund University in Sweden.

They are sharing it as evidence (finally!) of the Pfizer COVIDS-19 vaccine actually integrating with our DNA, and changing our genome, as they had always claimed.

Let that shock and horror sink in for a minute… and then let me explain to you what the facts really are in the next section…

Recommended : Are Residual DNA In mRNA Vaccines Dangerous?!

 

Truth : Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Did NOT Change DNA At All!

This is yet another example of vaccine fake news based on accidental / intentional misinterpretation of a single scientific study.

Here is what you really need to know about the Lund University study that went viral…

Fact #1 : Study Did NOT Say Pfizer Vaccine Alters Our DNA

First things first – the Lund University study is called Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line, and you can read it in its entirety here.

In the study’s Discussion section, the authors actually pointed out that their study does NOT show that the Pfizer vaccine integrates with the liver cell DNA, or alters it in any way.

At this stage, we do not know if DNA reverse transcribed from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome.

To be clear, the study does NOT show that the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine changes our DNA in any way or form.

Fact #2 : It Was A Laboratory Study

I should also point out the salient fact that it was an in-vitro study – a laboratory study, not a clinical study.

In-vitro studies are important, but they cannot be extrapolated to make any conclusion about what actually happens in a human body.

For example, laboratory studies do show that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin have an inhibitory effect on the SARS-CoV-2 virus; but once tested in actual human beings – they are shown to have no clinical benefit.

In other words – what works in a laboratory, may not work in an actual human being.

Read more : Study Shows 10X Ivermectin Can’t Prevent Severe COVID-19!

Fact #3 : Study Was Based On Liver Cancer Cells

The casual reader of the Lund University study will not realise that Huh7 (or Huh-7) cells are not ordinary liver cells that you or I have.

Huh7 cells were derived from the liver tumour of a 57 year-old Japanese man, and are special because :

  • they are immortal liver cancer cells that can keep multiplying
  • they are highly-susceptible to Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection
  • they are genetically different, with an abnormal number of chromosomes (between 55 and 63, normal human cells have 46)

The Huh7 cell line is useful for the study of liver cancer and Hepatitis C, as well as drugs that may combat HCV; but it is important to understand that Huh7 cells are not representative of normal human cells.

Fact #4 : Huh7 Liver Cells Were Cultured In Plates

For a “more physiologically relevant study of viruses“, these Huh7 cells have to be cultured in a NASA-designed 3D Rotating Wall Vessel (RWV) bioreactor.

These RWV bioreactors create 3D aggregates of Huh7 cells that are more “similar in structure and function” to their in vivo counterparts, with “completely altered gene expression and differentiation patterns“.

In other words, these RWV-grown Huh7 cells look and behave differently, more like regular human cells compared to plate-cultured Huh7 cells.

For the record, the Lund University study used plate-cultured Huh7 cells, and not RWV-grown Huh7 cells.

There is nothing wrong with that, but we should keep in mind that these cells are not an ideal representation of human cells.

Recommended : Are mRNA Vaccines Contaminated With SV40 DNA?!

This is what a 24-cell culture plate looks like

Fact #5 : Normal Human Cells Don’t Produce LINE-1 Enzyme

The scientists chose to use these Huh7 cells because like many cancerous cells, they express (produce) the LINE-1 enzyme.

LINE-1 is a reverse transcriptase that converts mRNA into DNA, so it is not surprising that the study would show it converting mRNA from the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine into DNA. That is literally what it is meant to do.

Normal human cells have the LINE-1 gene, but it is not expressed. Normal human cells do not produce the LINE-1 enzyme, which is why they could not use regular human cells in this study.

That is also why it is inappropriate to use the Huh7 cell culture to evaluate how mRNA vaccines would actually work or behave in humans.

Fact #6 : Transcribed DNA Did Not Enter Nucleus

The study only looked at whether mRNA from the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine can be transcribed into DNA by the LINE-1 enzyme.

As the study showed – yes, it can… because that’s what the LINE-1 enzyme does. But the study does not show that the transcribed DNA entered the cell nucleus and changed human DNA.

While that is plausible, it would require another enzyme called integrase, that viruses produce, to move that DNA into the cell nucleus itself.

Without the integrase enzyme, the DNA transcribed by the LINE-1 enzyme will only float outside, and will never integrate with the DNA inside the cell nucleus.

Recommended : New Study Proves Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Causes Turbo Cancer?!

Did Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Combine With DNA In Liver Cells?!

Fact #7 : mRNA Vaccines Do Not Modify Our Genes

An mRNA vaccine only contains a limited number of lipid nanoparticles containing those delicate mRNA instructions. So only a limited number of cells are involved in the vaccination process.

Even if it is somehow possible for the mRNA instructions from the vaccine to enter the cell nucleus and integrate with the DNA inside, it will only affect those cells.

Our cells die and are replaced by new cells all the time, so even if hypothetically the vaccine “infects” and modifies the DNA of a few hundred thousand cells, those cells will eventually die and be replaced by new cells without the modified DNA.

It is simply not possible for mRNA vaccines to modify our genes.

Fact #8 : Viruses Integrate With Cell DNA

Viruses like SARS-CoV-2 and HIV-1 (diagram below) integrate their genes with the host cell DNA, to hijack the cell and use it to produce copies of itself.

You can see how a typical RNA virus would infect a host cell, convert its RNA into DNA which is moved into the cell nucleus using the integrase enzyme.

Recommended : Did New Study Show Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Causes Autism?!

HIV-1 virus cell infection, credit : Günther Witzany

Once inside, the viral DNA integrates with the host cell DNA, which gets transcribed into instructions for the cell to produce copies of the virus.

This is the same way how the SARS-CoV-2 virus infects our cells, to produce copies of itself to infect even more cells.

If you are truly worried about anything modifying your cell’s DNA, you should try to avoid viral infections like COVID-19. Better still – vaccinate yourself, and get protected against COVID-19!

Now that you know the truth, please help us fight fake news by SHARING this article out!

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Fact Check | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Why MAECC Is Wrong About Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Study!

The MAECC is at it again, calling for a pause on the COVID-19 vaccine mandate because of a recent Swedish study on the Pfizer mRNA vaccine!

Let’s take a look at their claims, and find out what the facts really are!

 

MAECC : Pause Vaccine Mandate Over Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Study!

The MAECC (Malaysian Alliance for Effective Covid Control) has issued yet another call for the Malaysia Health Ministry to pause the “vaccine mandate”.

This time, they are using the recently-released Swedish study that allegedly shows the Pfizer mRNA vaccine being converted into DNA.

Their press release is very long, so feel free to skip it and head over to the next section for the facts.

PAUSE ON VACCINE MANDATE IS NECESSARY ON LATEST SCIENTIFIC FINDING

Malaysian Alliance for Effective Covid Control (MAECC) would like to highlight a recently published study that has confirmed the messenger RNA (mRNA) from the Pfizer Covid vaccine is able to enter human liver cells and convert into DNA. From the outset MAECC has been very concerned for the potential long-term adverse effect of the mRNA Covid vaccine, and this includes DNA change. Our fear is now confirmed.

 

Here’s Why MAECC Is Wrong About Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Study!

The MAECC has stridently promoted ivermectin, despite the lack of evidence, and came out strongly against vaccination even though COVID-19 vaccines have been proven to be safe and effective.

Here are the reasons why they are, yet again, wrong about the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

Fact #1 : There Is No Vaccine Mandate In Malaysia

First, let me address their title – there is no COVID-19 vaccine mandate in Malaysia.

No one is forced to take the COVID-19 vaccine in Malaysia. Any claim that there is a COVID-19 vaccine mandate is undeniably false.

Heck, Malaysia has no vaccine mandate, period. That’s why children of antivax parents remain unvaccinated, despite the risks to their health.

If they start off with a factually false title, what hope is there that their press release is actually based on facts?

Fact #2 : Swedish Study Did Not Show Pfizer Vaccine Changed DNA

The crux of their new press release is the recently-released Pfizer mRNA vaccine study by the Lund University of Sweden.

The MAECC claimed that their fear that the mRNA vaccine can change our DNA “is now confirmed“. That’s nonsense.

The Swedish researchers themselves pointed out in their study, that :

At this stage, we do not know if DNA reverse transcribed from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome.

To be clear, the study does not show that the Pfizer mRNA vaccine altered our DNA in any way or form.

The study does not even show that the transcribed DNA entered the cell nucleus!

Read more : Did Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Combine With DNA In Liver Cells?!

Fact #3 : Study Findings Did Not Shock Scientists / Physicians

The MAECC claims that the Swedish study findings has “shocked scientists and physicians throughout the world“. That is utter nonsense, unless they mean the few who did not read the study, or actually understand what it stated.

You don’t see health authorities ordering the immediate cessation or pause of mRNA vaccination, as some have done when some real adverse effect was discovered, like the risk of pericarditis / myocarditis.

Instead, the only people calling for mRNA vaccines to be stopped based on this laboratory study are fringe groups like the MAECC.

That’s because everyone else spent their time reading and understanding what the study meant, instead of “accidentally” or intentionally misinterpreting its results to push their own agenda.

If you are interested to know more about what the results of this Swedish study actually mean, please read my article – Did Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Combine With DNA In Liver Cells?!

Fact #4 : Waning Immunity Is Indirect Evidence Of No DNA Change

The waning immunity of COVID-19 vaccines is actually indirect evidence that mRNA vaccines do NOT change our DNA. Here’s why…

mRNA vaccines work by instructing some of our cells to manufacture the SARS-CoV-2 virus spike proteins, and put them on the cell surface to trigger the immune system into action.

If the mRNA vaccine actually integrates into our human DNA, all of our cells would display those spikes and continuously trigger the immune system for lifetime protection. That is not simply not the case.

In fact, it is now known that our COVID-19 antibody levels gradually drop after we are fully-vaccinated, which is why a booster dose is required to boost antibody levels after a few months.

Booster doses would not be necessary if the mRNA vaccine actually integrates with our DNA, making all our cells produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein forever.

Read more : Sinovac Vaccine Efficacy Rapidly Drops After 2 Months!

Fact #5 : mRNA Vaccine Proven Safe + Effective

MAECC claims that bad science is “behind the promotion and coercion of the masses to get the injections“. That’s utter nonsense. They are the ones propagating bad science.

COVID-19 vaccines have undergone the world’s largest clinical trials, collectively involving over hundreds of thousands of volunteers – far more than clinical trials of vaccines and drugs in the past!

All those clinical trials have shown that the approved COVID-19 vaccines are all safe and effective. Even then, these vaccines continue to be monitored for safety issues.

Over 10 billion doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered worldwide, and we are already able to confirm rare adverse effects like anaphylaxis and myocarditis with mRNA vaccines.

If it’s true that mRNA vaccines are able to modify our DNA, we would have seen those effects in the real world, not only in a small laboratory study of liver cancer cells.

Don’t risk your life or your family’s lives on the bad science and misinformation promoted by fringe groups like the MAECC.

Please help me fight fake news, by sharing this fact check with your family and friends!

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Fact Check | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Did Pfizer Vaccine Combine With DNA In Liver Cells?!

Did scientists prove that the Pfizer mRNA vaccine combined with the DNA of liver cells?!

Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Combined With DNA In Liver Cells!

Anti-vaccination and ivermectin proponents have gone bananas over the new study from the Lund University in Sweden.

They are sharing it as evidence (finally!) of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine actually integrating with our DNA, and changing our genome, as they had always claimed.

Let that shock and horror sink in for a minute… and then let me explain to you what the facts really are in the next section…

 

Truth : Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Did NOT Combine With DNA In Liver Cells!

This is yet another example of vaccine fake news based on accidental / intentional misinterpretation of a single scientific study.

Here is what you really need to know about this Lund University study…

Fact #1 : Study Did NOT Say Pfizer Vaccine Alters Our DNA

First things first – the Lund University study is called Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line, and you can read it in its entirety here.

If you read just the discussion, you will note that the study authors actually pointed out that their study does NOT show that the Pfizer vaccine integrates with the liver cell DNA, or alters it in any way.

At this stage, we do not know if DNA reverse transcribed from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome.

To be clear, the study offers no evidence that the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine alters our DNA in any way or form.

Fact #2 : It Was A Laboratory Study

I should also point out the obvious fact that this was an in-vitro study – a laboratory study, not a clinical study.

In-vitro studies are important, but they cannot be extrapolated to make any conclusion about what actually happens in a human body.

For example, in-vitro studies have shown that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin have an inhibitory effect on the SARS-CoV-2 virus; but once tested in actual human beings – they are shown to have no clinical benefit.

In other words – what works in a laboratory, may not work in an actual human being.

Read more : Study Shows 10X Ivermectin Can’t Prevent Severe COVID-19!

Fact #3 : Study Was Based On Liver Cancer Cells

The casual reader of the Lund University study will not realise that Huh7 (or Huh-7) cells are not ordinary liver cells that you or I have.

Huh7 cells were derived from the liver tumour of a 57 year-old Japanese man, and are special because :

  • they are immortal liver cancer cells that can keep multiplying
  • they are highly-susceptible to Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection
  • they are genetically different, with an abnormal number of chromosomes (between 55 and 63, normal human cells have 46)

The Huh7 cell line is useful for the study of liver cancer and Hepatitis C, as well as drugs that may combat HCV; but it is important to understand that Huh7 cells are not representative of normal human cells.

Fact #4 : Huh7 Liver Cells Were Cultured In Plates

For a “more physiologically relevant study of viruses“, these Huh7 cells have to be cultured in a NASA-designed 3D Rotating Wall Vessel (RWV) bioreactor.

These RWV bioreactors create 3D aggregates of Huh7 cells that are more “similar in structure and function” to their in vivo counterparts, with “completely altered gene expression and differentiation patterns“.

In other words, these RWV-grown Huh7 cells look and behave differently, more like regular human cells compared to plate-cultured Huh7 cells.

For the record, the Lund University study used plate-cultured Huh7 cells, and not RWV-grown Huh7 cells.

There is nothing wrong with that, but we should keep in mind that these cells are not an ideal representation of human cells.

This is what a 24-cell culture plate looks like

Fact #5 : Normal Human Cells Don’t Produce LINE-1 Enzyme

The scientists chose to use these Huh7 cells because like many cancerous cells, they express (produce) the LINE-1 enzyme.

LINE-1 is a reverse transcriptase that converts mRNA into DNA, so it is not surprising that the study would show it converting mRNA from the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine into DNA. That is literally what it is meant to do.

Normal human cells have the LINE-1 gene, but it is not expressed. Normal human cells do not produce the LINE-1 enzyme, which is why they could not use regular human cells in this study.

That is also why it is inappropriate to use the Huh7 cell culture to evaluate how mRNA vaccines would actually work or behave in humans.

Fact #6 : Transcribed DNA Did Not Enter Nucleus

The study only looked at whether mRNA from the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine can be transcribed into DNA by the LINE-1 enzyme.

As the study showed – yes, it can… because that’s what the LINE-1 enzyme does. But the study does not show that the transcribed DNA entered the cell nucleus and altered human DNA.

While that is plausible, it would require another enzyme called integrase, that viruses produce, to move that DNA into the cell nucleus itself.

Without the integrase enzyme, the DNA transcribed by the LINE-1 enzyme will only float outside, and will never integrate with the DNA inside the cell nucleus.

Did Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Combine With DNA In Liver Cells?!

Fact #7 : mRNA Vaccines Do Not Modify Our Genes

An mRNA vaccine only contains a limited number of lipid nanoparticles containing those delicate mRNA instructions. So only a limited number of cells are involved in the vaccination process.

Even if it is somehow possible for the mRNA instructions from the vaccine to enter the cell nucleus and integrate with the DNA inside, it will only affect those cells.

Our cells die and are replaced by new cells all the time, so even if hypothetically the vaccine “infects” and modifies the DNA of a few hundred thousand cells, those cells will eventually die and be replaced by new cells without the modified DNA.

It is simply not possible for mRNA vaccines to modify our genes.

Fact #8 : Viruses Integrate With Cell DNA

Viruses like SARS-CoV-2 and HIV-1 (diagram below) integrate their genes with the host cell DNA, to hijack the cell and use it to produce copies of itself.

You can see how a typical RNA virus would infect a host cell, convert its RNA into DNA which is moved into the cell nucleus using the integrase enzyme.

HIV-1 virus cell infection, credit : Günther Witzany

Once inside, the viral DNA integrates with the host cell DNA, which gets transcribed into instructions for the cell to produce copies of the virus.

This is the same way how the SARS-CoV-2 virus infects our cells, to produce copies of itself to infect even more cells.

If you are truly worried about anything modifying your cell’s DNA, you should try to avoid viral infections like COVID-19. Better still – vaccinate yourself, and get protected against COVID-19!

Now that you know the truth, please help us fight fake news by SHARING this article out!

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Fact Check | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Study Shows 10X Ivermectin Can’t Prevent Severe COVID-19!

The I-TECH study that was just published in JAMA showed that high-dose ivermectin cannot prevent patients from developing severe COVID-19!

Take a look at the peer-reviewed study, and find out why ivermectin really is useless against COVID-19.

 

I-TECH Study of 10X Ivermectin Dose to Prevent Severe COVID-19

Ivermectin proponents like the FLCCC have claimed that ivermectin works best as a prophylaxis or in early cases of COVID-19, preventing people from getting severe COVID-19.

Ivermectin’s efficacy as a prophylaxis was already dealt a fatal blow, when the FLCCC’s cheerleader himself – Dr. Pierre Kory and his daughter got sick from COVID-19 despite being on the I-MASK+ ivermectin protocol.

Keep in mind that the FLCCC only advocates taking one ivermectin tablet a week, which doubled after it failed to protect Dr. Kory from COVID-19.

Read more : Why Dr. Pierre Kory Got COVID-19 Despite Taking Ivermectin!

The I-TECH (Ivermectin Treatment Efficacy in COVID-19 High-Risk Patients) Study aimed to address the other question – can ivermectin prevent COVID-19 patients from developing severe disease?

Registered in the Clinical Trials database as NCT04920942, it was a multi-centre open-label randomised controlled trial of 490 patients using 5X the dose of ivermectin recommended by the FLCCC.

  • patients who were 50 years and above, with co-morbidities were selected because they are most likely to develop severe COVID-19
  • patients had to be hospitalised, with Stage 2 / 3 (mild to moderate) COVID-19
  • patients were randomised at a 1:1 ratio to :
    a) IVM group receiving ivermectin + standard of care
    b) SOC group receiving only standard of care
  • IVM group patients received 2X the standard dose of ivermectin (0.4 mg/kg/day) for 5 days – 5X higher than recommended by the FLCCC

Read more : I-TECH Study : Does Ivermectin Work Against COVID-19?

 

I-TECH Study : 10X Ivermectin Can’t Prevent Severe Covid-19!

After follow-up ended on 25 October 2021, the team released a preliminary report in November 2021, before it was peer-reviewed and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) on 18 February 2022.

I read through the I-TECH paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine, and summarised their key findings in the tables below.

No Significant Difference In Clinical Outcomes

There was little difference between the two groups. In other words – ivermectin offered no clinical benefit to those who took it, even at 2X the usual dose.

Keep in mind that even COVID-19 vaccines have to show a minimum of 50% efficacy. That minimum level of efficacy was not demonstrated in the I-TECH trial, even at 5X the dose recommended by the FLCCC.

Outcomes Ivermectin Standard
of Care
Significance
(p <0.05)
Progress to severe COVID-19 21.6% 17.3% 0.25, not significant
Time to severe COVID-19 (mean) 3.2 days 2.9 days 0.51, not significant
Patients requiring ventilation 1.7% 4.0% 0.17, not significant
Patients admitted to ICU 2.5% 3.2% 0.79, not significant
In-hospital mortality 1.2% 4.0% 0.09, not significant
Length of hospital stay (mean) 7.7 days 7.3 days 0.38, not significant
Total symptom resolution (day 5) 51.3% 53.0% 0.72, not significant
Normal chest radiography (day 5) 25.6% 24.9% 0.92, not significant

Ivermectin proponents are pointing out that more people died in the control group than with ivermectin. However, the truth is that 4 deaths in the control group were from nosocomial sepsis, not COVID-19.

If we adjust for that, this is what the true comparison of COVID-19 mortality would be like  – even less significant.

Outcomes Ivermectin Standard
of Care
In-hospital mortality 1.2% 2.4%

Ivermectin proponents are also complaining that the study did not properly match the two groups, while ignoring the inconvenient fact that the ivermectin group has almost twice as many people who were fully-vaccinated than the control group.

That alone would have greatly improved the ivermectin group’s chances of warding off serious COVID-19, and death. And yet, the ivermectin group did not show any significant advantage over the control group.

In fact, if the study authors perform a sub-group analysis with equal number of fully-vaccinated individuals, it’s likely that the mortality rate will be similar.

Significantly More Side Effects

The study also revealed that the ivermectin group suffered significantly more non-serious side effects, particularly diarrhoea.

The ivermectin group also experienced significantly more serious side effects :

  • 4.3X more serious side effects reported
  • 3.1X more Grade 3 side effects than the standard of care group
  • 5.3X more Grade 4 side effects than the standard of care group

Two patients who received ivermectin, for example, suffered heart attacks during the short trial period.

Side Effects Ivermectin Standard
of Care
Difference
Non-Serious Side Effects 15.8% 4.8% + 3.3X
Serious Side Effects
– Myocardial infarction
– Arterial injury
– Severe Anaemia
– Hypovolemic Shock
1.7%
0.83%

0.41%
0.41%
0.4%

0.4%

+ 4.3X



CTCAE Grade 1 9.5% 2.8% + 4X
CTCAE Grade 2 3.3% 1.2% + 2.8X
CTCAE Grade 3 2.5% 0.8% + 3.1X
CTCAE Grade 4 2.1% 0.4% + 5.3X

 

Summary : 10X Ivermectin Does Not Prevent Severe COVID-19

I should also point out that I-TECH was an OPEN LABEL trial, which means participants are aware and consent to receiving ivermectin.

That alone would skew the results in favour of the ivermectin group, as participants would benefit from the placebo effect.

Yet the results show that ivermectin did not prevent those who received it from progressing to severe COVID-19, despite taking 5X the dose recommended by the FLCCC, and 10X the standard dose.

On the other hand, 1 in 59 patients who took ivermectin for just 5 days reported serious side effects.

Based on the I-TECH trial results, there can be no doubt – ivermectin cannot protect patients from developing severe COVID-19, even at 10X the standard dose.

So ask yourself – how then can ivermectin work at 2X the dose once a week, as recommended by proponents like the FLCCC?

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Fact Check | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Did Cornell Name Ivermectin Most Effective Drug vs. Omicron?

Did Cornell University just confirm ivermectin as the most effective drug against the Omicron variant of COVID-19?

Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : Cornell Calls Ivermectin Most Effective Drug vs. Omicron!

Antivaxxers and alternative medicine websites like Mercola are sharing what they claim to be a Cornell University study that names ivermectin as the most effective drug against the Omicron variant.

Here is an example of a WhatsApp message that people are sharing about this Cornell University study.

It’s a long post, so feel free to skip to the next section for the facts.

14.2.2022

LATEST STUDY BY CORNELL UNIVERSITY USA FOUND IVERMECTIN MORE EFFECTIVE AGAINST OMICRON THAN OTHER DRUGS, INCLUDING PFIZER’S EXPENSIVE PAXLOVID

Researchers used a computational analysis to look at the Omicron variant, which has demonstrated a lower clinical presentation and lower hospital admission rates.

After having retrieved the complete genome sequence and collecting 30 variants from the database, the researchers analyzed 10 drugs against the virus, including:

 

Truth : Cornell Did Not Call Ivermectin Most Effective Drug vs. Omicron!

This is yet another example of ivermectin FAKE NEWS, created by antivaxxers and alternative health websites like Mercola.

Let me show you just how they maliciously lied to you about this study…

Fact #1 : Study Was Not Conducted By Cornell University

The study in question is called Insights from a computational analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant: Host-pathogen interaction, pathogenicity and possible therapeutics.

The study was conducted by Parvez et. al. – a team from the Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine in Japan, and the Shahjalal University of Science & Technology in Bangladesh.

This study on ivermectin and other protease inhibiting drugs has NOTHING to do with Cornell University.

Fact #2 : arXiv Is An Online Library Managed By Cornell University

The study summary in arXiv has a Cornell University logo at the top, which the fake news creator hopes will convince you that the study was done by a Cornell University team.

The truth is – arXiv is an open access repository (library) of scientific papers that is financed and managed by the Cornell University Library. Hence, the Cornell University logo.

That does not mean that the papers submitted to arXiv were conducted or endorsed by Cornell University.

Fact #3 : arXiv Papers Are NOT Peer-Reviewed

The C19Ivermectin website claims that the Parvez et. al. paper has been peer-reviewed. That’s false.

arXiv stores scientific preprints and post-prints (also called e-prints) that any scientist choose to submit.

All papers submitted to arXiv are NOT peer-reviewed, and must NOT be used without proper context.

While papers are typically peer-reviewed before becoming post-print and published (see graphic below), this is not the case for arXiv.

In fact, arXiv specifically warns that their post-prints are NOT peer-reviewed at the top of the page :

Important: e-prints posted on arXiv are not peer-reviewed by arXiv; they should not be relied upon without context to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information without consulting multiple experts in the field.

Fact #4 : Study Used Computer Modelling

The Parvez et. al. study (PDF download) was not conducted in the real world, or even in a laboratory. It was conducted on a computer.

They used computational analysis to analyse the binding potential for ten drugs that target the SARS-CoV-2’s protease protein.

However, this was all done on a computer, and may not necessarily reflect real world results. They must be reviewed (to look for mistakes), and then confirmed in actual lab and real world tests.

As the study authors themselves state, “While these hypotheses hold great value and may provide significant insights into the therapeutic strategies, further research is crucial to authenticate these statements.

Fact #5 : PAXLOVID Consists Of Two Drugs, Not One

The Parvez et. al. paper looked at individual drugs, and labelled Nirmatrelvir as PAXLOVID.

That is incorrect, as PAXLOVID is a combination of two protease inhibitors :

  • two 150 mg tablets of Nirmatrelvir (the new protease inhibitor developed by Pfizer)
  • one 100 mg tablet of Ritonavir (an old antiviral approved in 1996)

Drug combinations like this offer a synergistic effect, above and beyond their individual abilities.

Hence, the Parvez et. al. study does not accurately reflect the ability of the PAXLOVID combination of Nirmatrelvir and Ritonavir to simultaneously and synergistically bind to the coronavirus protease enzyme.

And no – you cannot combine or average their results. It doesn’t work that way…

Pro Tip : If you are searching for Ritonavir in the Parvez et. al. study, do note that they wrongly called it Ritonvir.

Fact #6 : In Silico Results Are Least Clinically Important

Computational analysis can help scientists identify potential drug candidates, but the results are not always clinically important.

In this study’s case, it looked at the affinity (ease) at which ten drugs can bind to the protease enzyme of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

While that is a critical feature of protease inhibiting drugs that block the coronavirus’ ability to replicate, it does not tell us other important things like :

  • the minimum drug plasma level to inhibit replication
  • maximum dose a human being can safely tolerate
  • the dose required to achieve the therapeutic plasma level
  • drug interactions and adverse effects
  • plasma half life and drug metabolism

In the order of clinical importance, such computational (in silico) research is the least significant. That’s why we cannot draw any conclusions from such studies.

Fact #7 : PAXLOVID Proven To Work Against COVID-19

Like many people, I am aghast at the high price of the Pfizer PAXLOVID drug combination. However, low cost is not a requirement for FDA approval.

The US FDA issued PAXLOVID an Emergency Use Authorisation (PDF download) because its Phase 2/3 trial results (PDF download) showed an 88% reduction in the risk of hospitalisation or death from COVID-19.

Even so, the US FDA limited PAXLOVID’s use to only treat early cases of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 :

  • Not authorised for severe or critical COVID-19
  • Not authorised as a preventive measure (prophylaxis) against COVID-19
  • Cannot be used for longer than 5 consecutive days

Fact #8 : Ivermectin Not Proven To Work Clinically Against COVID-19

Ivermectin has shown promise against the COVID-19 virus in laboratory tests since April 2020, but that has not translated into actual clinical benefit.

In other words – scientists can only show that ivermectin kills the coronavirus in laboratory tests, but not in actual human beings.

Here is a meta-analysis of ivermectin RCTs (randomised control trials), with three fraudulent studies removed – Elgazzar, Okomus and Niaee. Results towards the left suggest a clinical benefit for ivermectin.

Taken in totality, the latest meta-analysis show that the clinical effect of ivermectin on COVID-19 patients is NOT SIGNIFICANT enough to warrant its use as a treatment.

While it is ridiculous that Pfizer would charge so much for PAXLOVID, there is fortunately a low-cost way to prevent COVID-19 – vaccines.

Getting vaccinated is a cheap way to avoid getting COVID-19, and avoid the use of expensive drugs like PAXLOVID.

If you want to stick it to Pfizer, get vaccinated against COVID-19!

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Fact Check | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Ivermectin Has Antiviral Effect vs. Omicron + All Other Strains?

Did Kowa and Kitasato University prove that ivermectin has antiviral effect against the Omicron variant, and all other strains of COVID-19?

Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : Ivermectin Has Antiviral Effect vs. Omicron + All Other Strains!

This viral post claims that a Kowa and Kitasato University study just proved that ivermectin has antiviral effect against Omicron and all other mutant strains of COVID-19!

The creators of this viral post also pointed out that this news was written by Reuters. It’s a long post, so feel free to skip to the next section for the facts!

Ivermectin Has ‘Antiviral Effect’ Against Omicron And All Other ‘Mutant Strains’ Of Covid-19

A Japanese pharmaceutical company, Kowa Co, said on Monday that the drug ivermectin has an “antiviral effect” against Omicron and other Covid-19 variants.

Note : I removed the two links in the original message because they lead to fake news websites.

 

Ivermectin Has No Clinical Antiviral Effect vs. Omicron + All Other Strains!

This is yet another piece of fake news created by ivermectin proponent and antivaxxers, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : Reuters Screwed Up

Reuters screwed up their reporting, and ivermectin proponents and antivaxxers quickly made use of that.

Reuters published their piece with the title, “Japan’s Kowa says ivermectin effective against Omicron in phase III trial“.

They compounded their mistake by promoting it as such in Twitter :

Japanese trading and pharmaceutical company Kowa Co Ltd said on Monday anti-parasite drug ivermectin has been found effective for treating the Omicron variant of COVID-19 in a Phase III trial.

The truth is Reuters misrepresented the Kowa press release. Reuters later corrected their story, but the damage was done.

Fact #2 : It Was A Non-Clinical Trial

In their press release, Kowa triumphantly reported that their study with Kitasato University showed that ivermectin has an “antiviral effect” against the Omicron variant.

However, that was a non-clinical trial – a lab study. Basically, they ran “test tube” studies of ivermectin on Omicron samples in the lab.

Just for context, a non-clinical trial (also called pre-clinical trial) is often conducted before actual clinical trials on human volunteers.

That’s because clinical trials are expensive and difficult to conduct, consisting of multiple phases :

  • Phase 1 : To study safety and dosage in healthy volunteers
  • Phase 2 : To study efficacy and side effects in a small group of volunteers with the disease
  • Phase 3 : To demonstrate that the drug has clinical benefits in a large group of volunteers, and look for adverse reactions.
  • Phase 4 : To ensure safety and efficacy after approval by health authorities.

What Kowa did is nowhere close to an actual clinical trial, much less a Phase 3 trial.

Fact #3 : Non-Clinical Results Do Not Mean Clinical Effects

It is important to point out that most successful non-clinical drug tests do not end up delivering safe and/or useful drugs that deliver clinical benefits.

That’s because many drugs that work well in the lab either do not deliver clinical benefits in actual human beings, or only work at doses toxic to human beings, or introduce adverse effects when taken at the required doses.

That is why it is critical for all drugs to undergo clinical trials.

I should also point out that soap and alcohol have both been proven to destroy the SARS-CoV-2 virus in lab tests. But that does not mean drinking or eating soap or alcohol will prevent or cure COVID-19.

Read more : Soap vs Sanitiser : Which Works Better Against COVID-19?

Fact #4 : Kowa Confirmed Reuters’ Mistake

Kowa told Newsweek – “We sincerely apologise for any confusion. The press release announced that ivermectin was effective against [the] Omicron strain on in vitro study (i.e. non-clinical study), not in the clinical study. Presumably the original content was replaced with incorrect information in the process of translation.

Fact #5 : Omicron Variant Is Still A SARS-CoV-2 Virus

The Kowa lab test is nothing special – ivermectin was first shown to work against the SARS-CoV-2 in lab experiments by Monash University back in April 2020.

The only difference was Kowa tested it against the Omicron variant. But because the Omicron variant is still a SARS-CoV-2 virus, it would have the same results as previous lab tests.

In other words – the Kowa lab test and press release were basically marketing fluff. In that respect, they scored big.

Fact #6 : Kowa Is Conducting A Phase 3 Trial

Kowa is conducting a Phase 3 trial of their 3 mg ivermectin tablet called K-237 (ClinicalTrial NCT05056883).

It will involve 1000 volunteers, half of whom will receive 0.3 to 0.4 mg/kg of their K-237 drug, once daily for 3 days.

This Phase 3 trial is not expected to be completed until 31 March 2022. That does not necessarily mean it will be successfully completed on time.

After all, Kitasato University’s own CORVETTE-01 Phase 2 study of ivermectin took a year to recruit just 214 volunteers, and has not even concluded despite kicking off in January 2021.

Read more : Did Japan use ivermectin to successfully control COVID-19?

Fact #7 : I-TECH Study Showed No Clinical Benefit

One of the most recent randomised clinical trials of ivermectin was the I-TECH study involving 490 volunteers.

Like many previous clinical trials, it showed that despite ivermectin demonstrating effectiveness in lab tests, it has no obvious clinical benefits.

Read more : I-TECH Study : Does Ivermectin Work Against COVID-19?

Study Findings Results Significance
Symptom Recovery by Day 5 Very similar Not significant (p=0.77)
Progress to Severe COVID-19 IVM : 21.2%
SOC : 17.3%
SOC : -3.9 points
Not significant (p=0.30)
Time to Severe COVID-19 IVM : 3 days (±2.3)
SOC : 2.9 days
(±1.8)
IVM : +0.1 day
Not significant (p=0.68)
ICU Admission NA Not significant
Mechanical Ventilation NA Not significant
Symptom Recovery NA Not significant
Blood Parameters NA Not significant
Chest X-Ray Resolution NA Not significant
Adverse Events 3X more in IVM group Significant
Mortality NA Not significant (p=0.09)

Fact #8 : Ivermectin Clinical Studies Show No Significant Benefit

Here is a meta-analysis of ivermectin RCTs (randomised control trials), with three fraudulent studies removed – Elgazzar, Okomus and Niaee.

Results towards the left suggest a clinical benefit for ivermectin. For the I-TECH study, they used its most promising result – post-study mortality, but even that did not reach clinical significance (p<0.05)

Taken in totality, the latest meta-analysis show that the clinical effect of ivermectin on COVID-19 patients is NOT SIGNIFICANT enough to warrant its use as a treatment.

Fact #9 : Ivermectin Prophylaxis Is Not Cheap

Ivermectin proponents always claim that Big Pharma is against ivermectin because it’s dirt cheap. Ironically, they are now promoting Kowa, which itself is a member of Big Pharma.

While ivermectin is cheap to make and was cheap to buy earlier, its price has been jacked up by the very people promoting it as a cure for COVID-19.

And unlike vaccines, ivermectin is meant to be taken on a regular basis, even daily or with expensive supplements. The end result – ivermectin protocols are far more expensive than COVID-19 vaccines.

The truth is – there is far more money to be made from ivermectin protocols like I-MASK+, than COVID-19 vaccines.

Don’t believe me? Take out your calculator and do the math yourself.

Read more : Is ivermectin prophylaxis cheap? Here is what it really costs!

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Pierre Kory Got COVID-19 Despite Taking Ivermectin!

Dr. Pierre Kory and his daughter got infected with COVID-19, despite taking the FLCCC ivermectin prophylaxis protocol!

Watch our video, and find out WHY he got COVID-19 despite taking ivermectin!

 

Dr. Pierre Kory Got COVID-19, Despite Taking Ivermectin!

Sometime in August 2021, Dr. Pierre Kory admitted in an FLCCC Zoom call that he got infected with COVID-19, several days after his daughter caught it.

Imagine that – the FLCCC cheerleader himself was infected with COVID-19, despite taking the I-MASK+ ivermectin prophylaxis he had been promoting for months!

That FLCCC session video was posted in several places (including YouTube), but quickly deleted soon after. It’s as if ivermectin proponents are trying to bury the video to avoid the public finding out that their ivermectin hero contracted COVID-19…

Thanks to the awesome detective work by Dr. Jickee, I managed to get my hands on the FLCCC video! To avoid the video being taken down, I created this mash-up with my own text commentary.

You will be able to see and hear Dr. Pierre Kory himself admit that he contracted COVID-19, despite telling the US Senate twice that “if you take it, you won’t get sick [with COVID-19]

 

 

Why Dr Pierre Kory Got COVID-19 Despite Taking Ivermectin…

To be clear – I’m not ecstatic that Dr. Pierre Kory was infected by COVID-19. It only seemed inevitable, based on current evidence.

But I am certainly enthusiastic about the teaching moment here, even if it’s only anecdotal – the value of which Dr. Kory ironically touts to be as valuable as RCTs… #eyeroll

Fact #1 : Dr. Pierre Kory Admitted He Contracted COVID-19

Ivermectin proponents have to STOP LYING that Dr. Kory did not get infected with COVID-19, or that he didn’t get sick with it.

In the video above, Dr. Pierre Kory admitted that, despite being on the FLCCC I-MASK+ ivermectin protocol

  • his daughter infected him with COVID-19, and
  • he got sick from his COVID-19 infection.

No, he didn’t die (fortunately), but he definitely got infected and sick from COVID-19.

Fact #2 : Dr. Pierre Kory Did Not Get Infected By COVID-19 Patient

Many ivermectin proponents falsely claimed that Dr. Kory was infected while working on the “frontlines”, where the viral load is so high that the chances of a “breakthrough infection” is significant.

The truth is Dr. Pierre Kory resigned from his hospital – Aurora St. Luke’s Medical Center sometime in January 2021, so he had no contact with COVID-19 patients.

Fact #3 : Dr. Pierre Kory Was Infected By His Daughter

As Dr. Kory explained in the video, he was actually infected by his daughter who got COVID-19 several days earlier.

This is an important point to note for three reasons :

  • the I-MASK+ ivermectin protocol failed to prevent his daughter from getting COVID-19,
  • the I-MASK+ ivermectin protocol failed to prevent his daughter from transmitting it to him,and
  • Dr. Kory got infected despite not being in a “dangerous frontline environment”.

Of course, we have to assume he took reasonable precautions after his daughter got infected, like wearing a face mask, keeping her isolated, and maintaining good hand hygiene.

If he did not, now that would be highly irresponsible, wouldn’t it? And hypocritical too, since the I-MASK+ protocol recommends wearing “a cloth, surgical, or N95 mask”.

Read more : The Right Way To Wear + Remove A Face Mask!

Fact #4 : Dr. Pierre Kory Was On I-MASK+ Protocol

As he shared in his video testimonial, Dr. Kory was on the original I-MASK+ protocol of 0.2 mg of ivermectin once a week.

He claimed that he was “probably Day 7” of his last ivermectin dose, but that’s his opinion which is, again… NOT backed by any evidence.

I should also point out that the I-MASK+ protocol that the Dr. Kory and the FLCCC have been advocating consists of many supplements and ivermectin, 5-6 pills of which are taken EVERY SINGLE DAY.

  • 1,000 to 3,000 IU of Vitamin D3
  • 2,000 mg of Vitamin C
  • 250 mg of Quercetin
  • 50 mg of Zinc
  • 6 mg of Melatonin

So it would be disingenuous for him to claim that he only got COVID-19 because he was on Day 7 of his ivermectin dose…

Unless the truth is – the other components of the I-MASK+ protocol are USELESS against COVID-19?

Read more : Ivermectin + Supplements : Better Than COVID-19 Vaccines?

Fact #5 : Dr. Pierre Kory’s Daughter Was Infected Several Days Earlier

As Dr. Pierre Kory himself said, his daughter was infected several days earlier.

That actually refutes his claim that he was infected specifically on Day 7 of his ivermectin dose, because the SARS-CoV-2 virus does not wait around to infect people on a specific day.

The only way that would happen is if he took precautions around her except for the most vulnerable day – the day before his next dose of ivermectin.

It is far more likely that Dr. Pierre Kory got infected by his daughter days earlier. Due to the incubation period, he only started getting symptoms several days later.

You would have expected an experienced doctor like Dr. Kory to know that…

Read more : Delta Variant Can Infect In Seconds : How To Prevent That?

Fact #6 : Dr. Kory Admitted Ivermectin Not Working Against Delta Variant

Despite earlier claiming that ivermectin works on all COVID-19 variants, Dr. Pierre Kory himself admitted in the video above that ivermectin is failing to prevent infections from “new variants”.

In an earlier tweet, he even admitted that the Delta variant patients are “not showing responses to MATH+“, even saying that the FLCCC Alliance members are “demoralized and frightened“.

Did the FLCCC back the wrong horse, ivermectin? Will Ivermectin proponents now stop claiming that ivermectin works better than vaccines against the new variants?

Read more : Why Delta Variant Causes MORE Breakthrough Infections

Fact #7 : FLCCC Doubled Dose Of Ivermectin

Unfortunately, Dr. Pierre Kory and the FLCCC are doubling down on ivermectin… literally. They are now calling for the doubling of how much ivermectin to take :

  • prevention : 0.2 mg/kg of ivermectin TWICE a week, instead of once a week
  • early treatment : 0.4 mg/kg of ivermectin, instead of 0.2 mg/kg

However, even he admitted in the video above that this change is NOT backed by evidence, and is merely their opinion.

Goodness gracious… medical advice NOT backed by any real evidence.

Fact #8 : Ivermectin Has Half-Life Of Just 18 Hours

I honestly don’t see how the original or new FLCCC ivermectin protocol would work, since ivermectin has a plasma half-life of 18 hours according to Merck.

That means the ivermectin concentration in your blood reduces to HALF in 18 hours, and just a QUARTER in 36 hours.

Even taking ivermectin TWICE A WEEK makes little sense, since there would be little ivermectin left in the body by the end of the second day!

Fact #9 : Ivermectin Have Not Been Proven Effective Against COVID-19

As of 15 November 2021, ivermectin has not been proven to improve clinical outcomes or prevent transmission.

That is why the WHO and the vast majority of health authorities around the world DO NOT advocate using ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19.

Is it any wonder why Dr. Kory got infected with COVID-19 despite taking ivermectin? There never was any conclusive evidence that ivermectin could CLINICALLY prevent or cure COVID-19.

Read more : Latest Ivermectin COVID-19 Study : What Does It Really Say?

Fact #10 : FLCCC Ivermectin Protocol Is Not Cheap!

Antivaxxers claim that vaccines are being promoted for profit, but the truth is – there are MUCH LARGER PROFITS to be made through the FLCCC ivermectin protocol!

The FLCCC’s recommended I-MASK+ ivermectin protocol costs more than two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, after one month.

On top of that, their I-MASK+ ivermectin protocol requires you to take 5-6 pills every day for as long as the COVID-19 pandemic lasts, while most COVID-19 vaccines only require two doses, and a third booster dose.

Unscrupulous doctors are also charging exorbitant fees to prescribe ivermectin, while COVID-19 vaccines are generally offered for FREE in most countries!

Read more : Is Ivermectin Prophylaxis Cheap? Here Is What It Really Costs!

Please SHARE this article with your family and friends, so that they too can learn the the lessons offered by Dr. Kory’s COVID-19 infection…

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Fact Check | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Anti-Vax Doctors Caught COVID-19 At Pro-Ivermectin Summit!

SEVEN doctors fell sick with COVID-19 after attending an anti-vaccination, pro-ivermectin summit!

Here is what you need to know!

 

Florida COVID Summit of Pro-IVM, Anti-Vax Doctors

On 6 November 2021, anti-vaccination and pro-ivermectin doctors gathered for a one-day conference called Florida COVID Summit.

Organised by Dr. John Littell who had a family practice in the area, it was held ironically at the World Equestrian Center (WEC) in Ocala, Florida.

Featured speakers, which included Dr. Pierre Kory and Dr. Peter McCullough, spoke in favour of ivermectin and natural immunity, and railed against face masks and vaccines.

 

7 Anti-Vax Doctors Caught COVID-19 At Florida COVID Summit!

The Daily Beast reported that within days, seven doctors who attended the Florida COVID Summit tested positive and/or developed symptoms for COVID-19!

One of the doctors, Dr. Bruce Boros had earlier declared at the conference that he and his wife had been “on ivermectin for 16 months” and “have never felt healthier“.

Two days later, the 71 year-old cardiologist fell ill with COVID-19, and is now seriously ill at his Key West home.

The organiser, Dr. Littell however claimed that “everybody so far has responded to treatment with ivermectin… Bruce is doing well.

Dr. Boros’ last Facebook post was on 13 November 2021, in which he railed against Big Pharma, and called for people to “reject authoritarian medicine”.

While I certainly hope that Dr. Boros survives, the question remains – how did he get sick with COVID-19, if ivermectin truly “obliterates transmission” and “you won’t get sick [with COVID-19] if you take it“?

Credit : The Daily Beast

Dr. Littell also insisted that the Florida COVID Summit was not a superspreader event, and that they were already ill with COVID-19 before the summit.

But even if that’s true – how did all SEVEN doctors get infected separately, despite being protected by ivermectin?

It seems obvious that ivermectin does NOT prevent transmission, and it doesn’t prevent anyone from getting infected or sick from COVID-19.

After all, Dr. Pierre Kory himself got infected despite being on the FLCCC I-MASK+ protocol.

Read more : Why Dr. Pierre Kory Got COVID-19 Despite Taking Ivermectin!

 

Antivaxxers do NOT care about your health, or your family’s lives. Protect yourself and your family – get vaccinated against COVID-19!

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health + Science | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Did Japan Use Ivermectin To Successfully Control COVID-19?

Did Japan use ivermectin to successfully control COVID-19, cutting down new cases to only 140 per day?

Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : Japan Used Ivermectin To Successfully Control COVID-19!

This is the message that people are sharing on WhatsApp. It claims that Japan used ivermectin to successfully control COVID-19.

😃😃😃😃

Japan has allowed its doctors to prescribe ivermectin for Covid and is widely used to control Covid. You can check Japan’s figures in Worldometer. On average, the figures are 140 daily now, a far cry from 24,000 cases daily in August. It is certainly not because of vaccination.

Gibraltar – the vaccinated country in the world has cancelled its Christmas plans cause of the increase in Covid cases. Fullfact fact checkers are funded by those who are responsible for this pandemic as is the news agency Reuters. Thnx 🤫

 

Truth : Japan Did NOT Use Ivermectin To Successfully Control COVID-19!

This is yet another example of ivermectin fake news that is being constantly created and spread through messaging apps and social media, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : Japan Never Used Ivermectin Against COVID-19

This oft-repeated lie has been repeatedly proven false time and time again, and was concocted around “suggestions” by the Chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association, Dr. Haruo Ozaki, that doctors should be allowed to prescribe ivermectin and dexamethasone to their COVID-19 patients.

He made this suggestion twice – on 9 February 2021, and on 13 August 2021. However, that advice was not accepted by the Japanese government on both occasions.

As of 1 November 2021, the Japan Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare has NOT approved the use of ivermectin against COVID-19. Only these drugs have been approved :

  • Remdesivir (Veklury)
  • Dexamethasone
  • Baricitinib (olumiant)
  • Casirivimab / Imdevimab (Ronapreve)
  • Sotrovimab (XEVUDY)

Therefore, it is FALSE to claim that “Japan has allowed its doctors to prescribe ivermectin“.

It is also FALSE to claim that ivermectin “is widely used” to control COVID-19 in Japan.

Read more : Did Japan Approve Ivermectin For Use Against COVID-19?

Fact #2 : Japan’s Success Not Due To Ivermectin

The National Institute of Infectious Diseases (NIID) of Japan has been regularly publishing its evaluations of the COVID-19 situation in Japan.

In the last few weeks, it stated consistently that the massive drop in cases was due to :

  • the cooperation of many citizens and businesses toward infection control,
  • an improvement in the vaccination rate – persons who have completed the second vaccination account for more than 70% of all citizens, and approximately 70% of persons aged 12 to 19 years have already received one vaccination
  • delayed vaccinations – in foreign countries where vaccinations started earlier, breakthrough infections have occurred due to a decrease in neutralizing antibody titers, and infection rebounds have occurred during the course of significant relaxations of regulations

As such, the NIID said that “vaccination should be promoted continuously, and each person must take actions to prevent the spread of the infection“.

Ivermectin was never mentioned even once in any of the NIID’s reports going back to 10 December 2020. That’s because ivermectin was never used to treat COVID-19 in Japan.

Read more : Sinovac Vaccine Efficacy Rapidly Drops After 2 Months!

Fact #3 : Kitasato University Cannot Recruit Enough Participants For IVM Trial

Ivermectin was discovered by Satoshi Ōmura of the Kitasato University, and William Campbell of Merck.

So it comes to no surprise that the Kitasato University would try to conduct a clinical study to examine the efficacy of ivermectin against COVID-19.

The study, CORVETTE-01 (Study in COvid-19 Patients With iveRmectin), kicked off on 16 September 2020 with the aim of recruiting 240 participants.

However, as of the latest 26 October 2021 update, the study was still NOT able to recruit its target of 240 participants.

That would suggest that interest in ivermectin’s use against COVID-19 is VERY LOW in Japan, even in people with COVID-19!

Fact #4 : Gibraltar Proves Vaccination Works!

Antivaxxers are pointing out that Gibraltar is fully-vaccinated, and yet they were “forced” to cancel their official Christmas celebrations after a spike in COVID-19 cases.

It is true that Gibraltar cancelled their official Christmas celebrations because of a surge in COVID-19 cases.

But like the devious little liars they are, antivaxxers use that small fact to mislead you on the truth – that COVID-19 vaccinations are working.

If you look at this comparison I created, you can see that the large spike that started in December 2020 was wiped out once Gibraltar vaccinated about 56% of their population.

More importantly, they suffered only FOUR (4) deaths since their population was 97% vaccinated against COVID-19.

Gibraltar is proving that even though protection against infections may wane after a few months, the vaccines are protecting their people against death from COVID-19.

Fact #5 : Antivaxxers Are Responsible For Pandemic Continuing

Are fact checkers being funded by those responsible for the pandemic. Where’s the evidence? Is it possible for the SARS-CoV-2 virus to fund websites?

That’s how STUPID and DESPICABLE antivaxxers really are. They have no qualms making up ridiculous stories to fool you.

I can’t speak for Reuters, but fact checking websites like Tech ARP are funded by ads (and only if you click on them) and possibly, donations.

The truth is antivaxxers want to distract you from the fact that they are RESPONSIBLE for the persistence of this pandemic.

If everyone gets vaccinated like the residents of Gibraltar, COVID-19 may become endemic (there will always be new cases), but VERY FEW people will get terribly sick or die from it!

Read more : How Much Can A Website Make From Google AdSense?

Antivaxxers do NOT care about your health, or your family’s lives. Protect yourself and your family – get vaccinated against COVID-19!

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Fact Check | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Did Statistics Prove COVID-19 Is NOT Dangerous?!

Is it true that statistics have proven that COVID-19 is NOT actually dangerous?

Take a look at the new viral COVID-19 message, and find out what the FACTS really are!

Updated @ 2021-11-15 : Updated the article with the 2021 version.
Originally posted @ 2021-06-11

 

Statistics Prove That COVID-19 Not Dangerous?

There are two versions of the new “statistics prove that COVID-19 is not dangerous” viral message.

One crafted with a pro China viewpoint, and the other with an anti-vaccination viewpoint. If you have seen them, just skip to the bottom for the facts.

Pro China Version

🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
STATISTICS TO AMAZE YOU …

The number of deaths in the world in the last 3 months of 2020

314,687 : Corona virus
340,584 : Malaria
353,696 : suicide
393,479 : road accidents
240,950 : HIV
558,471 : alcohol
816,498 : smoking
1,167,714: Cancer

Then do you think Corona is dangerous?

Anti Vaccination Version

STATISTICS TO AMAZE YOU …

The number of deaths in the world in the last 3 months of 2020 / 2021

314,687 : Corona virus
340,584 : Malaria
353,696 : suicide
393,479 : road accidents
240,950 : HIV
558,471 : alcohol
816,498 : smoking
1,167,714: Cancer

2019: estimated 1.8M TB deaths
2020: estimated 1.4M TB deaths

Do you now think Corona is dangerous?

 

Facts : Misleading Statistics, COVID-19 Is Dangerous!

This is yet another piece of FAKE NEWS, using statistics to fool you into thinking that COVID-19 is not dangerous.

Here is what you need to know about these statistics…

Fact #1 : The Statistics Are Not Accurate

The statistics quoted in the viral messages are not accurate. For example :

  • 1.2 million people died from tuberculosis in 2019 (WHO)
  • WHO has yet to release their report on how many people died from tuberculosis in 2020

It is also odd that the fake news creator quoted deaths in the last 3 months of 2020 / 2021 when health authorities generally release mortality data annually.

The statistics also remained the same when this fake news was “updated” for 2021. The latest version actually claims that the (unchanged) numbers are from “the last 3 months of 2021” when it’s only November 2021!

Fact #2 : Statistics Don’t Matter If You Compare Apple To Orange

The fake news creator threw out so many numbers to confuse you. They are also irrelevant because they are comparing completely different things.

For example, COVID-19 is an highly-infectious disease, but cancer is not. Your friends can give you COVID-19, but not cancer.

Similarly, you can infect your elderly parents with COVID-19, but you cannot infect them with the “need” to speed and run red lights.

So don’t fall for this fake equivalence. Dying from COVID-19 is avoidable – all you have to do is get vaccinated. It’s that simple!

Fact #3 : Excess Mortality Shows COVID-19 Effect On Deaths

One way to see the “effect” of COVID-19 on the natural death rate from the usual diseases that kill us is to look at Excess Mortality.

As you can see, the United States suffered approximately 360,000 extra deaths from 26 January to 3 October 2020 than the 5-year average (2015 to 2019).

That excess mortality gives you an idea of how dangerous COVID-19 really is.

Fact #4 : Over 5 Million Deaths From COVID-19

It’s not even the end of 2021, and we have already recorded over 5.1 million deaths out of 253 million COVID-19 cases (as of 15 November 2021).

That’s a mortality rate of 2% – 2 out of every 100 people infected has died. And that’s 5.1 million people who did not have to die in the last 2 years.

Fact #5 : COVID-19 Mortality Increases When Hospitals Are Overloaded

The mortality rate of COVID-19 varies widely from 0.25% to 10%, with an average of about 2.2% (as of 11 June 2021).

That’s because COVID-19 mortality rate is highly dependent on whether people who suffer from moderate to severe disease have access to medical treatment, including ICUs and respirators.

The mortality rate quickly ramps up when hospitals run out of ICUs, respirators and/or oxygen supply. That was what happened when hospitals in India were overwhelmed by a massive surge of COVID-19 cases.

Mass cremations of COVID-19 deaths in India

If all 7.674 billion people in the world gets infected with COVID-19, the mortality rate will likely reach 10% because there are simply not enough hospitals, ICUs and respirators.

That will mean that at least 767 MILLION people will die – everyone of them someone’s father, mother, brother, sister, son or daughter.

That’s why lockdowns and vaccines are needed to break the chain of infection, and prevent the overloading of hospitals.

Fact #6 : COVID-19 Originated In China

Despite what Sinophiles and China have suggested, COVID-19 originated in China. This is a statement of fact, not an invitation to blame China or the Chinese people.

It is therefore wrong for anyone to suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic was planned in order to discredit China, or take over companies, or any such nonsense.

Fact #7 : Sleep + Deep Breathing Won’t Prevent COVID-19

The suggestion that getting enough sleep and plenty of deep breathing will prevent COVID-19 is not only utter nonsense, it’s dangerous advice.

COVID-19 is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, which is highly-contagious. It is also a completely new virus, so our bodies have NO DEFENCES against it.

There is also NO TREATMENT for COVID-19, no matter what you see on social media about ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, as of 11 June 2021.

Homeopathy, Ayurvedic and Traditional Chinese Medicine also DO NOT WORK against COVID-19, as of 11 June 2021.

That’s why it is important to get vaccinated – COVID-19 vaccines are currently the only PROVEN WAY to protect ourselves against COVID-19.

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Did Ivermectin Reduce 70% Covid-19 Deaths In I-TECH Trial?

Did ivermectin reduce COVID-19 deaths by an incredible 70% in the I-TECH study?

Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the FACTS really are!

 

Claim : Ivermectin Reduced 70% Of COVID-19 Deaths!

A Google doctor called Jacinta Lee recently called the Malaysia Director-General a liar, and claimed that ivermectin reduced COVID-19 deaths by 70% in the I-TECH study!

Her post is long, so just skip to the next section for the facts…

Malaysian Ivermectin Trial Shows a 70% of Reduction in Deaths

HISHAM TIPU APA HARI INI (WHAT HISHAM LIED ABOUT TODAY)

MOH’s sham ivermectin trial has concluded and a brilliant mind (Steve Kirsch) has analysed the result. (He has a lottt of interesting stuff on his page, go check it out. You may have seen his presentation in the FDA hearing on C19 vaxs.) See Siong sent the study results to Steve, and Matthew Ooi discovered the analysis and sent it to me.

This is what he found:

Ivermectin group: 3 deaths out of 241 patients (1.2%)
Standard treatment group: 10 deaths out of 249 patients (4%)

Risk reduction for deaths: 69%, p=0.09

That’s 3.3 times more patients in the control group who died, compared to those in the ivermectin group.

 

Truth : Ivermectin Did NOT Reduce 70% Od COVID-19 Deaths

As expected, ivermectin proponents refuse to accept yet another study that disproves their belief, and unsurprisingly, they cherry-picked the data to push their belief.

We cannot jump to the conclusion that ivermectin prevents deaths, merely because fewer people died in IVM group, compared to the SOC group, because…

  • The mortality data was reverse-engineered, so it could possibly be different from the actual I-TECH data.
  • Ivermectin was only given for 5 days, so 28-day mortality data is misleading and irrelevant
  • It does not make sense that MORE people on ivermectin develop severe COVID-19, but fewer die.
  • All other clinical findings were similar, with no significant differences.
  • People will die, with or without COVID-19.

For a more in-depth explanation, here are the reasons why Google doctor Jacinta Lee is wrong in her opinions and conclusion…

Fact #1 : KKM Did Not Release Full I-TECH Data

The Malaysia Ministry of Health (KKM) which conducted the I-TECH study did not release the study data.

They only released some results from the study, which I compiled them in this table.

You will notice that they didn’t release the data for a slew of results that were deemed “not significant”, not just the 28-day mortality data.

I-TECH Study Findings Results Significance
Symptom Recovery by Day 5 Very similar Not significant (p=0.77)
Progress to Severe COVID-19 IVM : 21.2%
SOC : 17.3%
SOC : -3.9 points
Not significant (p=0.30)
Time to Severe COVID-19 IVM : 3 days (±2.3)
SOC : 2.9 days
(±1.8)
IVM : +0.1 day
Not significant (p=0.68)
ICU Admission NA Not significant
Mechanical Ventilation NA Not significant
Symptom Recovery NA Not significant
Blood Parameters NA Not significant
Chest X-Ray Resolution NA Not significant
Adverse Events 3X more in IVM group Significant
28-Day Mortality NA Not significant (p=0.09)

Fact #2 : Steve Kirsch’s Data Was Not From KKM

When asked how Steve Kirsch obtained the I-TECH study’s mortality results, Jacinta claimed that he sourced it from the official KKM press release. That’s not true.

Steve Kirsch also quoted that official KKM press release as his source in his C19Ivermectin article on the I-TECH study.

That’s not possible, because KKM never released the full 28-day mortality data. The data was also not released in the ClinicalTrials.gov website.

Fact #3 : You Don’t Need A Team To Reverse-Engineer The Data…

Even though KKM did not release the full mortality data, they gave us enough clues to reverse-engineer the “missing data”.

Jacinta claimed that “Steve’s people managed to reverse-engineer it from the statistics numbers. Damn great minds. I really take my hat off to them.

The truth is – it doesn’t require a team of great minds. Heck, I did it myself in less than 10 minutes, and so can you too. Just follow my guide!

Read more : How To Reverse-Engineer “Missing” I-TECH Ivermectin Data?

Fact #4 : Reverse-Engineering No Guarantee Of Accuracy

I replicated Steve Kirsch’s reverse-engineering “magic” and can confirm that based on KKM’s publicly released data, it is “high likely” that :

  • 3 out of 241 people in the IVM group died during 28 days of the trial
  • 10 out of 249 people in the SOC group died during 28 days of the trial

However, the P-ratio is quite different from what KKM reported. So it is POSSIBLE that there are fewer people in the IVM group, and more people in the SOC group.

You can read more about this “problem” in the Adjust The Group Sizes section of my I-TECH data reverse-engineering guide.

We will not know for sure until KKM releases the full set of data, which they promised to submit for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Fact #5 : 28-Day Mortality Results Are Misleading

If you look at the I-TECH study parameters, you will realise that it was NOT designed to test ivermectin’s effect on mortality.

The IVM group patients were given ivermectin for only 5 days, and not throughout the 28-day study.

Ivermectin has a plasma half-life of only 18 hours, which means the patients would have little to no ivermectin in their body by the 8th day of the study!

Therefore, the 28-day lower mortality trend that KKM announced is actually misleading and irrelevant, because ivermectin would have little to no effect beyond the first 5-8 days.

When the I-TECH study data is finally published, it would be interesting to see the Day 7 mortality numbers. The 28-day mortality is IRRELEVANT since they only gave ivermectin for 5 days.

Read more : I-TECH Study : Does Ivermectin Work Against COVID-19?

Fact #6 : MORE People On Ivermectin Developed Severe COVID-19

It should be pointed out that ivermectin did not help prevent people from developing severe COVID-19.

In the I-TECH study, 21.2% of the ivermectin group (~52 people) developed severe COVID-19, while only 17.3% of people on standard care (~42 people) developed severe COVID-19.

That’s a 3.9 point (10 person) difference, which may seem like quite a big deal, but was still judged as “not significant”.

But how likely is it that MORE people on ivermectin developed severe COVID-19, but fewer of them died?

Fact #7 : There Were No Difference In Other Clinical Criteria

Ivermectin proponents have been loudly claiming that ivermectin works best as an early COVID-19 treatment, but have been very quiet about the fact that the I-TECH trial showed NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE in other clinical criteria :

  • Complete symptom recovery
  • Symptom recovery by Day 5
  • Progress to severe COVID-19
  • Time to severe COVID-19
  • ICU admission
  • Mechanical ventilation
  • Blood parameters
  • Chest x-ray resolution

Does it make sense that ivermectin FAILED to work while the patients were still Category 2 or 3, but somehow reduces their mortality without any change in their risk for ICU admission, mechanical ventilation or even blood test results?

That brings us to the next point – human beings can die at any time, with or without COVID-19…

Read more : Why Dr. Pierre Kory Got COVID-19 Despite Taking Ivermectin!

 

Fact #8 : People WILL Die, With Or Without COVID-19

The I-TECH study appears to be focused on looking at whether ivermectin can prevent people from developing severe COVID-19.

Hence, they specifically targeted patients who were 50 years or older with co-morbidities and Category 2 or 3 COVID-19, who are most likely to develop severe COVID-19.

However, these are also people who are most likely to die of natural causes, or COVID-19.

Malaysia has a crude death rate of 5.1 per thousand population, and approximately 1.2% of COVID-19 patients die in Malaysia.

So in a normal population, at least 8 out of 490 people would have been expected to die during that 28-day trial period – 2 from natural causes, 6 from COVID-19.

In the I-TECH study population of 50+ year-old patients with co-morbidities, it is not surprising to see 13 deaths. In fact, we should expect 4-5 deaths just from natural causes.

If someone in the control group dies from a heart attack or a stroke – two common causes of death for that age group – does that mean ivermectin protects against heart attack / stroke? Of course, not.

Participants in the ivermectin (IVM) and control (SOC) groups have also been randomly selected, so it is possible that the control group has older patients, or patients with more debilitating co-morbidities.

That’s why it is important to determine if a clinical finding is statistically significant, if their deaths cannot be directly ruled out as due to natural causes.

As the KKM press release stated, while there was a trend of reduced 28-day mortality, but it was NOT statistically significant (p=0.09).

They had the results independently analysed, but even those two scientists were not able to determine if mortality was indeed reduced.

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Fact Check | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

How To Reverse-Engineer “Missing” I-TECH Ivermectin Data?

Ivermectin proponents are claiming that KKM hid some data in their I-TECH ivermectin study.

Find out if that’s true, and how you too can reverse-engineer the “missing” data!

 

Claim : I-TECH Ivermectin Mortality Data Missing!

On 4 Novembre 2021, the Malaysia Ministry of Health (KKM) released a summary of their I-TECH ivermectin study. It was immediately panned by ivermectin proponents, because it showed that ivermectin had no clinical benefit.

Soon after, they began to claim that KKM hid some data in their I-TECH ivermectin study, particularly the mortality data. Some even accused the Health Director-General, Dr. Noor Hisham Abdullah of lying.

Malaysian Ivermectin Trial Shows a 70% of Reduction in Deaths

HISHAM TIPU APA HARI INI (WHAT HISHAM LIED ABOUT TODAY)

MOH’s sham ivermectin trial has concluded and a brilliant mind (Steve Kirsch) has analysed the result.

The number of deaths in both groups is not stated in Hisham’s press release (why did he hide this???) but Steve’s people managed to reverse-engineer it from the statistics numbers. Damn great minds. I really take my hat off to them.

 

Did KKM Hide I-TECH Ivermectin Mortality Data?

It is true that the Malaysia Ministry of Health press release did not include details of the difference in mortality between the two groups.

However, it is false to claim that they lied, or are trying to hide the mortality data, because :

  1. The press release specifically mentioned that “there was a trend of reduced 28-day mortality, but it was not statistically significant (p=0.09).
  2. They sought independent analysis of the mortality results, but even the two experts could NOT determine if mortality was indeed reduced, due to the few deaths in this study.
  3. They released some data on the mortality of the study participants :
    13 deaths out of 490 participants, at the end of 28 days
    – the ivermectin group had lower mortality, OR 0.30 [95% CI 0.08-1.11]; p=0.09

It seems obvious that they wanted to avoid misinterpretation of the mortality data. I will explain and show you why that’s the case in a separate article after this.

 

How To Reverse-Engineer “Missing” I-TECH Ivermectin Data?

The mortality of each group can be, and have apparently been, reverse-engineered from the data above, which ivermectin proponents are claiming is incredibly difficult.

  • to make it look like there is a malicious attempt at hiding the truth
  • to make themselves look smarter than the real scientists and doctors

That’s not true at all. I reverse-engineered the data in less than 10 minutes, and so can you!

Let me show you how…

Prepare Known Data

First, list down what KKM publicly released in their summary of the I-TECH study results.

Total Study Participants : 490
Deaths After 28 Days : 13
Fewer people died in IVM group, compared to SOC group

OR 0.30 [95% CI 0.08-1.11]; p=0.09

Odds Ratio : 0.30
95% Confidence Interval : 0.08 to 1.11
P-value : 0.09

Use An Odds Ratio Calculator

Next, use an Odds Ratio calculator to reverse-engineer the study numbers, by simply filling in four numbers :

a = number of people who died in IVM group
b = number of people who survived in IVM group
c = number of people who died in SOC group
d = number of people who survived in SOC group

Start by assuming that there are equal number of people (245) in both groups, and since fewer people in the IVM group died, start by testing the 6-7 ratio (see first screenshot below).

Then work backwards until you see the results match the publicly-released KKM data – OR 0.30 [95% CI 0.08-1.11]; p=0.09.

You will only need FOUR tries :

  • 6-7 ratio : OR = 0.85
  • 5-8 ratio : OR = 0.63
  • 4-9 ratio : OR = 0.45
  • 3-10 ratio : OR = 0.30 (we have a winner!)

See? That didn’t take more than 2-3 minutes, did it?

Adjust The Group Sizes

But the 3-10 ratio with equal group sizes have a problem – the P-value is 0.06, not 0.09.

It would appear that there are fewer people in the IVM group, so this is the time to adjust the group sizes (b and d) further (without changing a and c).

  • 242-235 ratio : P=0.0635
  • 241-236 ratio : P=0.0653
  • 240-237 ratio : P=0.0672
  • 239-238 ratio : P=0.0691
  • 238-239 ratio : P=0.0710 (closest to OR 0.30 95% CI 0.08-1.11)
  • 237-240 ratio : P=0.0730
  • 236-241 ratio : P=0.0751
  • 235-242 ratio : P=0.0772
  • 234-243 ratio : P=0.0793
  • 233-244 ratio : P=0.0815
  • 232-245 ratio : P=0.0837
  • 231-246 ratio : P=0.0860 (closest to P=0.09)

Now we derive two results. The first is closest to the KKM results, but with P=0.07 (not P=0.09). See second screenshot above.

The second is the closest we can get to P=0.09 – with slightly different results of OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.09-1.12

This shows the limitation of reverse engineering, and why it is still best to obtain the actual data.

Fortunately, the Malaysia Ministry of Health is in the process of submitting the I-TECH study data for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. So we will eventually have the actual mortality results.

But I hope that you learned something new from this guide, at least come away with the understanding that there is nothing magical about this. It’s really just science and math.

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Fact Check | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

I-TECH Study : Does Ivermectin Work Against COVID-19?

Take a look at the I-TECH ivermectin trial results summary, and find out if ivermectin works against COVID-19!

 

I-TECH Study : Multi-Centre Ivermectin Trial Vs. COVID-19

On 6 June 2021, the Malaysia Ministry of Health started an Ivermectin trial for high-risk COVID-19 patients called the I-TECH (Ivermectin Treatment Efficacy in COVID-19 High-Risk Patients) Study.

The I-TECH Study was a multi-centre open-label randomised controlled trial approved by the Medical Research and Ethics Committee (MREC), and registered in the Clinical Trials database as NCT04920942.

The trial was conducted by the Institute for Clinical Research (ICR), together with infectious disease physicians and clinicians at 20 government hospitals and the MAEPS 2.0 Quarantine and COVID-19 Treatment Centre.

500 patients were recruited for the I-TECH study, with four excluded for not meeting the study criteria and six withdrawing after expressing concerns about ivermectin’s side effects.

  • patients who were 50 years and above, with co-morbidities were selected
  • patients had to be hospitalised, with Stage 2 / 3 (mild to moderate) COVID-19
  • patients were randomised at a 1:1 ratio to :
    a) IVM group receiving ivermectin + standard of care
    b) SOC group receiving only standard of care
  • IVM group patients received 2X the standard dose of ivermectin (0.4 mg/kg/day) for 5 days

The last patient was recruited on 9 October 2021, and the follow-up ended on 25 October 2021.

 

I-TECH Study Results : Does Ivermectin Work Against COVID-19?

Here is a summary of the I-TECH study results that were announced by the Malaysia Ministry of Health :

  • Ivermectin did not prevent patients from progressing to severe COVID-19
  • Ivermectin did not delay the progression to severe COVID-19
  • Patients on ivermectin complained of 3X more adverse events
  • The most common ivermectin side effect was diarrhoea
  • There was no difference between the two groups in terms of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, symptom recovery, blood parameters and chest x-ray resolution.
  • The rate of full symptom recovery by Day 5 was very similar between the two groups
  • There was a trend of reduced 28-day mortality, but it was not statistically significant (p=0.09).
    Independent analysis was not able to determine if mortality was indeed reduced, due to the few deaths in this study (13 out of 490).

For those who prefer their results in tabular form, I summarised their results in this table :

Study Findings Results Significance
Symptom Recovery by Day 5 Very similar Not significant (p=0.77)
Progress to Severe COVID-19 IVM : 21.2%
SOC : 17.3%
SOC : -3.9 points
Not significant (p=0.30)
Time to Severe COVID-19 IVM : 3 days (±2.3)
SOC : 2.9 days
(±1.8)
IVM : +0.1 day
Not significant (p=0.68)
ICU Admission NA Not significant
Mechanical Ventilation NA Not significant
Symptom Recovery NA Not significant
Blood Parameters NA Not significant
Chest X-Ray Resolution NA Not significant
Adverse Events 3X more in IVM group Significant
Mortality NA Not significant (p=0.09)

As a result of ivermectin’s lack of effect on the 490 patients in the I-TECH study, the Malaysia Ministry of Health sites that :

  • The outcome of the I-TECH study shows that ivermectin does not reduce risk of severe illness from COVID-19
  • Ivermectin cannot be recommended for inclusion in current COVID-19 treatment guidelines
  • The MOH will continue with prior advice that ivermectin only be used within clinical trials settings with monitoring.

The Ministry of Health also pointed out the I-TECH study findings are supported by other recent large ivermectin studies like IVERCOR-COVID19 from Argentina and the TOGETHER trial from Brazil.

The I-TECH team will submit their data for publication in a peer-reviewed journal to help provide additional research information for ivermectin studies, including meta-analyses.

Finally, the Malaysia Ministry of Health cautioned medical practitioners NOT to recommend ivermectin, including sharing illegal advertising or sale of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.

I should point out that individuals or companies that sell illegal ivermectin can face fines of up to RM100,000 and/or 5 years of prison.

Read more : Illegal Ivermectin Sale : Up to RM50K Fine + 5 Years Jail!

 

How Do I-TECH Study Results Compare With Other Ivermectin Studies?

The Malaysia Director-General of Health, Dr. Noor Hisham Abdullah also shared an updated meta-analysis of ivermectin trials, including the new I-TECH study results, but removing three fraudulent studies – Elgazzar, Okomus and Niaee.

Results towards the left suggest a clinical benefit for ivermectin. In this case, Dr. Noor Hisham used the study’s most promising result – post-study mortality, but even that did not reach clinical significance (p<0.05)

You can also see the results of the TOGETHER trial from Brazil, and IVERCOR-COVID19 (Vallejos) trial that Dr. Noor Hisham mentioned just above the I-TECH results.

Taken in totality, the updated meta-analysis show that the clinical effect of ivermectin on COVID-19 patients is NOT SIGNIFICANT enough to warrant its use as a treatment.

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Fact Check | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Retiree Hospitalised After Taking Ivermectin For Just 2 Days!

A 65 year-old retiree was hospitalised after taking ivermectin for just 2 days!

Find out what happened, and why you should not take unproven cures for COVID-19!

 

Retiree Hospitalised After Taking Ivermectin For Just 2 Days!

A 65 year-old retiree in Singapore became the latest casualty of the ivermectin insanity.

Madam Wong Lee Tak was convinced by two members of the Church of the Risen Christ to purchase and take ivermectin to protect herself against COVID-19.

After taking just four 3 mg tablets for two days, she fell very ill, complaining of :

  • dizziness
  • vomiting and nausea
  • loss of appetite
  • severe joint pain
  • tiredness
  • inability to stand and walk

Her daughter, Vanessa Koh, admitted her to the Sengkang General Hospital, where she is now in stable condition.

Read more : Why Dr. Pierre Kory Got COVID-19 Despite Taking Ivermectin!

 

Church Members Convinced Retiree To Take Ivermectin!

At first, Vanessa thought her mother was suffering side effects from the Sinopharm vaccine that she received more than a week ago.

She told The Straits Times that it took months to convince her mother to get vaccinated, because her close friends from the Church of the Risen Christ told her that the mRNA vaccine was against God.

One church member, Clara Ng, even said that those advising Madam Wong to get the vaccine should “shut their mouth” unless they can “ask Jesus to tell me personally, that he commanded / ask me to go ahead and take the vaccine“.

Read more : Is COVID-19 Vaccine Useless Against Delta Variant?

In the end, her mother acquiesced to get the Sinopharm vaccine, instead of the more efficacious Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccine.

While looking after her mother, she found out why – messages on her mother’s phone revealed that her friends from the Church of the Risen Christ were actively trying to stop her from getting the more efficacious mRNA vaccine.

One of the Risen Christ Church members, Clara Ng, even told her, “don’t ALLOW SATAN to win!!!” by getting vaccinated against COVID-19.

Read more : Are Chinese Vaccines The Most Effective Vs. Delta Variant?

The Risen Christ Church members also advised her to buy and use ivermectin instead, with one church member selling them in boxes of 1,000 ivermectin tablets for S$110 (about US$81 / £59 / RM338)

When confronted, her mother admitted she purchased nine boxes of ivermectin from that church member, which she hid in her study room.

It should be noted that in Singapore, ivermectin can only be prescribed by a registered medical practitioner. It cannot be sold over-the-counter, or on the Internet.

Another church member then shared the dosage reference for taking ivermectin, that was taken from the FLCCC I-MASK+ protocol, which has never been tested in any clinical trial.

Read more : Ivermectin + Supplements : Better Than COVID-19 Vaccines?

Vanessa also shared that two of her mother’s church friends – Judy Koh and Clara Ng – convinced her mother that :

  • the mRNA vaccine was against their religion (it’s not), and that Jesus would reach out to them if they are allowed to take it
  • on finding out that her mother was going to get the Sinopharm vaccine, telling her that she will not go to Heaven if she takes the second dose.
  • taking ivermectin will help to purge the vaccine and COVID-19.

Shockingly, none of her mother’s church friends contacted her or her mother after she was hospitalised.

Her mother was also removed from the church Telegram group, and her conversations there erased.

So Vanessa went on Facebook to write about her mother’s experience, and to warn people about COVID Know-It-All experts :

To all of you out there who feel that you know better than the doctors because of google, DON’T. There is nothing more disrespectful than trying to do someone else’s profession, when you are severely unqualified – and that applies for not just Judy, Clara but also shamefully, my mom.

Discuss with your family, no matter how you feel your good friends are better because they are more pious. Because sitting outside the A&E was not Judy Koh or Clara Ng. It was Vanessa Koh. Because sitting outside at the taxi stand hospital is not Judy Koh or Clara Ng. It was Vincent Koh. Because sitting at the admission counter paying for the bill is not Judy Koh or Clara Ng. It was Vanessa Koh.

Do not let the Judy-s and Clara-s in your life overlook the people that truly matters.

Family.

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

YouTube Anti-Vax Ban Problems : Abuse + Stupid AI

YouTube recently initiated a ban on anti-vax videos, and terminating accounts of anti-vaccine influencers.

Some people believe that it’s excessive censorship, but really – the bigger problems are abuse and stupid AI.

 

YouTube Anti-Vax Ban : What Is It?

After months of letting anti-vaccine influencers spread misinformation about COVID-19 vaccine and vaccination, YouTube finally cracked down.

On 29 September 2021, YouTube expanded their medical misinformation policies, removing thousands of videos and even terminating accounts of anti-vaccine influencers.

Specifically, content that falsely alleges that approved vaccines are dangerous and cause chronic health effects, claims that vaccines do not reduce transmission or contraction of disease, or contains misinformation on the substances contained in vaccines will be removed.

 

YouTube Anti-Vax Ban Problems : Abuse + Stupid AI

At that time, I celebrated their decision because YouTube has let these anti-vaccine influencers spread misinformation for far too long.

My friend, Ian, felt that it was excessive censorship – an opinion echoed by many on the Internet.

However, at that time, I told him that I was far more worried about abuse and their stupid AI. That proved to be prescient…

Just FOUR DAYS LATER, I was hit by a Community Guidelines Strike for a video designed to fight against medical misinformation on ivermectin and COVID-19.

Our team has reviewed your content, and, unfortunately, we think it violates our medical misinformation policy. We’ve removed the following content from YouTube:

Why Dr. Pierre Kory Got COVID-19 Even On FLCCC Ivermectin Prophylaxis!

YouTube does not allow content that spreads medical misinformation that contradicts local health authorities’ or the World Health Organization (WHO) medical information about COVID-19.

Your channel now has 1 strike. You won’t be able to do things like upload, post, or live stream for 1 week. A second strike will prevent you from publishing content for 2 weeks. Three strikes in the same 90 day period will result in your channel being permanently removed from YouTube.

When I uploaded video, I made sure it passed the YouTube check. But after about a dozen people viewed the video, it was taken down by YouTube.

Either YouTube’s AI algorithm flagged it or some people reported it as medical misinformation – which isn’t shocking. Trolls have been trying to take down our fact check videos, by abusing the YouTube reporting system.

But for the YouTube team to agree with them – that’s something special.

You can take a look at a low-resolution version of the video here, and see for yourself if it promotes medical misinformation.

 

YouTube Anti-Vax Ban Problems : Ignorant Appeal Team

It also appears that the YouTube Appeal Team is either ignorant or biased. They immediately rejected my appeal :

We reviewed your content carefully, and have confirmed that it violates our medical misinformation policy. We know this is probably disappointing news, but it’s our job to make sure that YouTube is a safe place for all.

The odd thing is – this isn’t a new video. It was an updated version of this older video, with more details to refute claims by ivermectin supporters.

I also added information on COVID-19 vaccines, sharing that they have all successfully passed their clinical trials, unlike ivermectin.

The updated video also makes a stronger call for people to get vaccinated against COVID-19.

However, the YouTube appeal team still insists that this is medical misinformation… #SMH

 

This was what I feared – not censorship, but abuse and a stupid AI… and what looks like ignorance.

Mistakes by AI algorithms are a real problem. I have been hit by warnings for FACT CHECKING fake news. But it looks like ignorance is also a problem.

The YouTube appeal team does not seem to know how to differentiate between real medical misinformation and a fact check of medical misinformation.

So now we have been hit by a permanent strike for trying to help fight against misinformation. That does NOT bode well for YouTube’s “fight” against fake news…

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Internet | Business | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Pasteur Institute Confirmed Ivermectin Effective vs COVID-19?

Did the Pasteur Institute in France confirm that ivermectin is an effective drug against COVID-19?

Find out what they really discovered!

 

Claim : Pasteur Institute Confirmed Ivermectin Effective Against COVID-19!

This message is being shared on WhatsApp, claiming that the Pasteur Institute recently recognised the effectiveness of ivermectin against COVID-19.

It also claimed that because of the Pasteur Institute’s findings, ivermectin has been re-approved for use against COVID-19 in the European Union.

You have to have patience. Do not accept any blackmail. Be patient. Now that ivermectin has been re-approved, there is no need for a vaccine. Great news. The Pasteur Institute recognizes the effectiveness of Ivermectin. One intake could eradicate all SARS covid-19 genetic material in some people. Read and share well.

The good news: Ivermectin is now scientifically recognized as an effective drug, in the prophylaxis and treatment of Covid-19 by researchers at the Pasteur Institute in France. The results of their studies were published in the journal EMBO Molecular Medicine on July 12, 2021, so that’s recently. Macron’s government knew about it …

Be good and don’t hesitate to cheer up people who don’t want to get vaccinated

 

Truth : Pasteur Institute Only Tested Ivermectin On Hamsters!

This is yet another FAKE STORY about ivermectin and its efficacy against COVID-19.

The truth is the Pasteur Institute did NOT recognise ivermectin as an effective treatment or prophylaxis against COVID-19.

Fact #1 : Pasteur Institute Study Was Conducted On Hamsters!

The Pasteur Institute study DID NOT actually recognise ivermectin as an effective drug against COVID-19 in humans, because it was conducted on hamsters, not humans!

For your reference, you can read the official press release and the published study, which are both in English.

Fact #2 : Ivermectin Did NOT Reduce COVID-19 Viral Load!

The fake story claimed that a single dose of ivermectin was shown to “eradicate all SARS covid-19 genetic material“. That’s nonsense.

The Pasteur Institute study only showed that :

  • Ivermectin reduced inflammation in the respiratory tract of hamsters, with reduced symptoms.
  • Ivermectin reduced risk of loss of smell in hamsters.
  • Ivermectin did NOT have any impact on the viral replication of SARS-CoV-2.

In other words – the Pasteur Institute study showed that Ivermectin did NOT reduce the SARS-CoV-2 viral load!

The chief author of the study, Guilherme Dias de Melo said, “Surprisingly, we observed that treatment with ivermectin did not reduce viral replication; the models that received treatment had similar quantities of viral load in the nasal cavity and the lungs as those that did not receive treatment.”

On the left is a human being, on the right – a hamster

Fact #3 : Pasteur Institute Called For Clinical Trials In Humans

Guilherme noted that, “Our results reveal that ivermectin has an immunomodulatory effect rather than an antiviral effect. These data provide crucial evidence to support clinical trials in humans”.

The Pasteur Institute stated that their study showed that for clinical trials in humans should proceed. It did not demonstrate or prove that ivermectin works against COVID-19 in humans.

Fact #4 : Ivermectin Was NEVER Approved For Use Against COVID-19

The fake story claimed that ivermectin was just “re-approved” for use against COVID-19 in France or the European Union. That’s completely FALSE.

Ivermectin was NEVER approved by any major health authority, including the WHO, CDC, FDA, EMA or the TGA, for use against COVID-19. Never mind getting “re-approved”…

Fact #5 : Vaccines Have Been Proven Safe + Effective Against COVID-19

The truth is vaccines have been proven through very large clinical trials to be SAFE and EFFECTIVE against COVID-19.

On the other hand, ivermectin has not been proven to improve clinical outcomes or prevent transmission.

That is why the WHO and the vast majority of health authorities around the world DO NOT advocate using ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19.

Read more : Latest Ivermectin COVID-19 Study : What Does It Really Say?

Fact #6 : Vaccines Cheaper + Easier Than Ivermectin

Antivaxxers claim that vaccines are being promoted for profit, but the truth is – there are MUCH LARGER PROFITS to be made through the FLCCC ivermectin protocol!

The FLCCC’s recommended I-MASK+ ivermectin protocol costs more than two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, after one month.

On top of that, their I-MASK+ ivermectin protocol requires you to take 5-6 pills every day for as long as the COVID-19 pandemic lasts, while most COVID-19 vaccines only require two doses.

Unscrupulous doctors are also charging exorbitant fees to prescribe ivermectin, while COVID-19 vaccines are generally offered for FREE in most countries!

Read more : Is Ivermectin Prophylaxis Cheap? Here Is What It Really Costs!

Antivaxxers are not interested in the truth, or even your lives. These human viruses are only interested in spreading lies and misinformation about vaccines.

Please SHARE this fact check with your family and friends, and protect yourself and your family – get vaccinated against COVID-19!

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > HealthFact CheckTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Is EU Cancelling COVID-19 Vaccination In October 2021?

Is the EU planning to cancel COVID-19 vaccination in October, after approving FIVE therapies for the coronavirus?

Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the FACTS really are!

 

Is EU Cancelling COVID-19 Vaccination In October 2021?

This article has gone viral on WhatsApp, claiming that the EU (European Union) is going to cancel COVID-19 vaccination in October, after approving FIVE therapies for the coronavirus!

It also claims that ivermectin has been scientifically recognised as an effective treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19 by the Pasteur Institute.

It’s a long article, so just skip to the next section for the facts!

DISTRIBUTE TO EVERYONE who does not want to be “vaccinated”. All vaccines will no longer be justified from 20.10.2021: verified information. The European Union has approved (https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/fr/ip_21_3299) 5 therapies that will be available in all hospitals in the Member States for the treatment of Covid.

These therapies have been approved by a decree of the European Council (European Parliament) and will be in force from 1/10, so they will be distributed little by little around 20/10. Vaccines were approved on a “temporary experimental basis”. But since the decree will oblige to prescribe these 5 new drugs, the use of the vaccine will cease.

 

Truth : EU Is NOT Cancelling COVID-19 Vaccination At All!

This is yet another FAKE STORY written by anti-vaxxers in their bid to discourage people from protecting themselves with the COVID-19 vaccines.

Here are the FACTS…

Fact #1 : The EU Press Release Is Available In English

It is instructive to note that the fake article offers a link to the EU press release in French, even though there is an English version.

Whoever wrote the fake article intentionally gave you the French press release, so you won’t be able to read it and discover that it’s just fake news.

Fact #2 : They Are Potential Treatments For COVID-19

If you read the EU press release in English, you will realise that what the viral article claimed is COMPLETELY FALSE.

Published on 29 June 2021, the press release only announced that the EU had identified the first five therapeutics that have “a high potential” to be approved later.

Nowhere in the press release was it stated that ANY of the five therapeutics was even approved.

Fact #3 : The EU Has Not Approved Them

The EU press release stated that these five therapeutics had a high potential to be among the three new COVID-19 therapeutics to receive authorisation by October 2021

  • the immunosuppressant, baricitinib
  • the monoclonal antibody combination of bamlanivimab and etesevimab
  • the monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab
  • the monoclonal antibody, regdanvimab
  • the monoclonal antibody, sotrovimab

However, the EU has NOT approved any of those five therapeutics for use against COVID-19, of 24 September 2021.

There was no “decree of the European Council” that approved any of these therapeutics, and that’s not how treatments are approved in Europe.

So the five therapeutics above are unlikely to be in use in October 2021, contrary to what the fake article claimed.

Read more : EU Digital COVID Certificate – A Comedy Of Errors!

Fact #4 : Approval Does Not Mean Obligation

Even if any of those five therapeutics are eventually approved by the EU for use against COVID-19, there is NO OBLIGATION to administer them.

It is left to the treating doctor to decide whether to prescribe it to the patient, or not. The patient can, of course, choose to accept or refuse the treatment.

Fact #5 : COVID-19 Vaccines Will Remain In Use

Even if new treatments can be found for COVID-19, vaccines will remain in use as the first line of defence.

That’s because they PREVENT people from getting COVID-19, thereby negating the need for hospitalisation and treatment.

Therapeutics are also MORE expensive than vaccines, even without accounting for the manpower (doctors and nurses) and hospitalisation costs!

COVID-19 vaccines will remain in use in the European Union, irrespective of how many COVID-19 treatments are eventually approved.

Fact #6 : COVID-19 Vaccines Are NOT Experimental

Once the COVID-19 vaccines successfully completed their clinical trials and received their EUA, they were NO LONGER EXPERIMENTAL.

The conditions to receive the EUA is similar to that of a full approval. The only real difference is the post-study follow-up :

  • EUA : At least half of the participants in the studies must be followed for at least two months after vaccination.
  • Full FDA Approval : All of the participants in the studies must be followed for at least six months.

The EU has never called the COVID-19 vaccines “experimental and provisional”. That’s yet another lie in the fake story.

Read more : What’s The Difference Between Full FDA Approval vs EUA?

Fact #7 : Ivermectin Was NEVER Approved For Use Against COVID-19

The fake story claimed that ivermectin was just “re-approved”. That’s completely FALSE.

Ivermectin was NEVER approved by any major health authority, including the WHO, CDC, FDA, EMA or the TGA, for use against COVID-19. Never mind getting “re-approved”…

Fact #8 : Pasteur Institute Study Was Conducted On Hamsters!

The Pasteur Institute press release and the published study are both in English.

However, the fake story creator shared a link to the French biography of a French antivaxxer – Dominique Rueff instead, to mislead you.

That’s because the Pasteur Institute study DID NOT actually recognise ivermectin as an effective drug against COVID-19 in humans…

  • The study was conducted on hamsters, not humans
  • Ivermectin reduced inflammation in the respiratory tract of hamsters, with reduced symptoms.
  • Ivermectin reduced risk of loss of smell in hamsters.
  • Ivermectin did NOT have any impact on the viral replication of SARS-CoV-2.

The chief author of the study, Guilherme Dias de Melo said, “Surprisingly, we observed that treatment with ivermectin did not reduce viral replication; the models that received treatment had similar quantities of viral load in the nasal cavity and the lungs as those that did not receive treatment. Our results reveal that ivermectin has an immunomodulatory effect rather than an antiviral effect.”

Therefore, the Guilherme said that, “these data provide crucial evidence to support clinical trials in humans“.

In other words, the Pasteur Institute is only advocating for clinical trials in humans, not the use of ivermectin against COVID-19 in humans.

Antivaxxers are not interested in the truth, or even your lives. These human viruses are only interested in spreading lies and misinformation about vaccines.

Please SHARE this fact check with your family and friends, and protect yourself and your family – get vaccinated against COVID-19!

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > HealthFact CheckTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Singapore Autopsy Of COVID-19 Patients Fact Check!

Did Singapore conduct an autopsy that confirmed COVID-19 is not a virus, but a bacterium that causes blood clotting?!

Take a look at this new viral message, and find out what the FACTS really are!

Updated @ 2021-09-13 : Updated with Chinese version, and some small updates.
Updated @ 2021-08-23 : Updated with additional information.

Originally posted @ 2021-06-10

 

Claim : Autopsy In Singapore Confirmed COVID-19 Is Not A Virus!

This new WhatsApp message claims that an autopsy in Singapore has finally proven that COVID-19 is not a virus, but bacteria that causes blood clotting!

It’s rather long, so skip to the next section for the facts!

Singapore has become the first country in the world to perform an autopsy (post-mortem) for a Covid-19 corpse. After a thorough investigation, it was. discovered that Covid-19 does not exist as a virus, but rather a bacterium that has been exposed to radiation and causes human death by coagulation in the blood.

Covid-19 disease has been found to cause blood clotting, which causes blood clotting in humans and causes blood clotting in the veins, which makes it difficult for a person to breathe because the brain, heart and lungs cannot receive oxygen, causing people to die quickly.

 

Singapore COVID-19 Autopsy : Same Bullshit, Different Country

If you thought this viral message was familiar, that’s because it’s the SAME BULLSHIT that went viral earlier, just swapping out Russia for Singapore and some other changes.

Like 95% of viral messages on COVID-19 – this is yet another piece of FAKE NEWS based on some facts.

Let’s examine each claim and find out what the facts really are!

Fact #1 : First COVID-19 Autopsies Were Conducted In China

Wuhan was the epicentre of the COVID-19 epidemic in China, and it was there that the first patients died, and where the first autopsies were conducted.

A forensics team from the Tongji Medical College of the Huazhong University of Science and Technology conducted the first autopsy of a COVID-19 patient on 16 February 2020.

By 24 February 2020, they conducted a total of nine autopsies – the results of which was published in the Journal of Forensic Medicine.

Fact #2 : There Is No WHO Protocol Forbidding Autopsies

There is no WHO protocol that forbids autopsies of any person who died from COVID-19, or any other disease.

The World Health Organisation is an international advisory body. It has no power over individual countries, and therefore, cannot ban post-mortem autopsies in any country.

In fact, the WHO itself published guidelines on how to perform autopsies and manage the bodies of dead COVID-19 patients.

Fact #3 : COVID-19 Is Caused By SARS-CoV-2 Virus

COVID-19 is technically not a virus.

COVID-19 is the disease caused by a new coronavirus, which was initially called 2019-nCoV, before being officially named as SARS-CoV-2.

Fact #4 : SARS-CoV-2 Is A Real Virus

We know that the SARS-CoV-2 is a real virus, because Chinese scientists isolated it and with the help of the University of Sydney in Australia, released a draft sequence of its genome on 10 January 2020.

The complete genome of approximately 30 kilobytes in length was published on 3 February 2020.

You can look at the entire SARS-CoV-2 viral genome that was released by Chinese scientists here.

SARS-CoV-2 genome diagram. Credit : Rohan Bir Singh, MD

Fact #5 : A Virus Is Not A Bacterium

Any half-decent student of biology can tell you that a virus is not a bacterium. They are completely different.

A virus, for example, is not even a living organism. It is just RNA or DNA encapsulated within a protein or lipid shell, and can only replicate within a host cell.

A bacterium, on the other hand, is a single-celled microorganism that can multiply by itself. It is also much more complex, with intracellular organelles and even extracellular appendages.

SARS-CoV-2 – the COVID-19 coronavirus – is a virus, not a bacterium.

Fact #6 : Apronik Does Not Exist

The drug, Apronik, that was mentioned in the viral message does not exist!

Fact #7 : There Is No Cure For COVID-19 (Right Now)

As of 13 September 2021, there is no cure for COVID-19. Only vaccines that can help prevent it.

Antibiotics, anti-inflammatory, or anti-coagulant medication cannot cure COVID-19.

Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin cannot cure COVID-19.

Both aspirin and paracetamol are painkillers, and they won’t cure COVID-19.

Fact #8 : Low Dose Aspirin Does Not Prevent COVID-19

100 mg is actually a low dose for aspirin, which is normally given in the form of 325 mg or 500 mg tablets to adults.

Many people already take low-dose aspirin (also called baby aspirin) – usually 81 mg – to reduce the risk of heart attacks or strokes.

However, that has not prevented any of them from being infected with COVID-19.

Fact #9 : COVID-19 Can Cause Blood Clotting

COVID-19 can cause a hypercoagulable state, in which a severe inflammatory response triggers localised blood clotting which can become generalised.

It is especially common in severe COVID-19 disease, and has nothing to do with a bacterium, or radiation.

When a COVID-19 patient presents with blood clots, they are treated with blood thinners like aspirin and heparin.

Now that you know the truth, please SHARE this fact check with your family and friends, so they won’t get fooled by this fake news.

COVID-19 is a dangerous disease. Protect yourself and your family – get vaccinated against COVID-19!

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Fact CheckTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Is COVID-19 Vaccine Useless Against Delta Variant?

Is the COVID-19 vaccine really useless against the Delta variant of COVID-19?

Let’s take a look at this new claim, and find out what the FACTS really are!

 

Claim : COVID-19 Vaccine Is Useless Against Delta Variant!

Captain Wong Ang Peng from the MAECC is at it again, crying wolf about the COVID-19 vaccines to promote ivermectin.

He managed to get The Malaysian Insight to post his letter, which has gone viral on WhatsApp after it was actively shared by ivermectin proponents and antivaxxers.

It is a very long letter, so just SKIP to the next section for the facts…

Delta variant demolishes vaccine claim of less severe Covid for inoculated

Wong Ang Peng

A flurry of new scientific information challenges the presumption of efficacy and demolishes the Covid-19 vaccines’ claims that they are a guard against severe infection.

THE Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 is now a serious global concern. The spate of scientific reports on Delta variant surfacing over the last few weeks showing those fully vaccinated against Covid-19 are no better off, or even disadvantaged, is cause for policymakers to rethink.

This flurry of new scientific information challenges the presumption of efficacy and demolishes the vaccines’ claims that they are a guard against severe infection.

 

Truth : COVID-19 Vaccine Protects Against Delta Variant!

Captain Wong Ang Peng is part of MAECC – a pseudoscientific group that is actively promoting ivermectin as an alternative to COVID-19 vaccines.

Let’s go through his claims, and find out what the FACTS really are…

Fact #1 : KKM Did Not Randomly Sequence COVID-19 Samples

Captain Wong Ang Peng claimed that the Malaysia Health Ministry (KKM) randomly sequenced 265 COVID-19 samples – all of which turned out to be of the Delta variant.

That’s not true.

First of all, the samples were not randomly selected, they were selected as suspected variants to be confirmed through genome sequencing.

Secondly, the research was not conducted by KKM itself but the Institute of Medical Research (IMR), the UITM Integrative Pharmacogenomimcs Institute (iPROMISE), and the UNIMAS Institute of Health and Community Medicine.

Read more : Delta variant of COVID-19 can infect in seconds!

Fact #2 : New COVID-19 Cases Are NOT Necessarily Of Delta Variant

It is very misleading and wrong for him to claim that the 265 samples were randomly selected, because it suggests that all new COVID-19 cases are of the Delta variant.

That is simply NOT true.

Very little genomic testing is being conducted in Malaysia – just over 1,200 cases, which is less than 0.065% of all detected cases.

There is simply not enough data to draw any strong conclusion, much less suggest that all new COVID-19 cases are of the Delta variant.

Fact #3 : Percentage Of Breakthrough Infections Is Misleading

The use of percentage to judge the effectiveness of a vaccine is misleading, because :

  • in a population with 0% vaccination, there will be ZERO breakthrough infections – does that mean that the vaccine is 100% efficacious?
  • in a population with 100% vaccination, there can only be breakthrough infections – does that mean that the vaccine is 100% useless?

As the vaccination rate increases, the percentage of breakthrough cases versus infections of the unvaccinated will undoubtedly increase.

However, the number of hospitalisations and deaths will drop, and over time, so will the number of new cases.

Fact #4 : Vaccines Protect Against Hospitalisation + Death

COVID-19 vaccines vary in efficacy from just 50% to 95%, which means there will ALWAYS be some breakthrough infections.

There will be more breakthrough case with less efficacious vaccines, and fewer breakthrough cases with more efficacious vaccines, but they ALL offer excellent protection against severe COVID-19 and death!

People who are fully-vaccinated can get infected, but will either be asymptomatic or suffer only a mild disease.

Even so, you are strongly advised to maintain COVID-19 precautions, at least until herd immunity is achieved.

COVID-19 Vaccine Protection Against
Symptomatic
Infection
Severe
Disease
Death
Pfizer Comirnaty 95.0% 100% 100%
Gamaleya Sputnik V 91.6% 100% 100%
Moderna mRNA-1273 94.1% 100% 100%
AstraZeneca AZD1222 62% ~ 90% 100% 100%
Sinopharm BBIBP-CorV 79% ~ 86% 90% 100%
Sinovac Biotech 50.65% 83.7% 100%
J&J Janssen COVID-19 66.0% 85% 100%
CanSino Biologics 65.7% 90.98% 100%

Fact #5 : Vaccines Still Protect Against Delta Variant

It has been known since June 2021 that the Delta variant causes more breakthrough infections.

However, it is false and misleading to claim that the breakthrough infection rates are rising because the COVID-19 vaccine does not work against the Delta variant.

Take a look at the table below, which I compiled of the latest 7 days with full data from KKM. It shows that even with just under 50% of the adult population in Malaysia fully-vaccinated :

  • less than 28% of all new cases were fully vaccinated.
  • less than 25% of new cases requiring hospitalisation were fully vaccinated
  • just over 20% of new cases had severe COVID-19 requiring an ICU bed were fully vaccinated

What this means is unvaccinated people are 3X more likely to require hospitalisation, and 4X more likely to develop severe COVID-19.

This shows that the COVID-19 vaccine you received still offers great protection against moderate and severe disease, even with the Delta variant.

Read more : Why Delta variant causes MORE breakthrough infections!

Date Fully
Vaccinated
Population*
New
Cases
Moderate
Disease
Severe
Disease
29/8 44.5% 23.9% 23.4% 14.6%
30/8 45.9% 23.9% 21.5% 18.9%
31/8 47.2% 26.4% 21.4% 32.8%
1/9 48.7% 28.9% 19.4% 18.8%
2/9 50.2% 29.2% 30.4% 13.5%
3/9 51.6% 30.4% 26.8% 25.1%
4/9 53.0% 32.1% 29.9% 18.3%
Average 48.7% 27.8% 24.7% 20.3%

* Data taken from 15 days prior : 14 days for full efficacy + 1 day to account for discrepancy in reporting time

Fact #6 : Delta Variant Not Caused By “Vaccine Escape”

Captain Ang falsely claimed that the Delta variant was caused by “vaccine escape” – the virus mutated to evade the vaccine, like antibiotic resistance – an idea propagated by Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche.

When it comes to the Delta variant, that would be IMPOSSIBLE because it was detected in India in October 2020 –  months before the first COVID-19 vaccinations started!

Fact #7 : Natural Immunity Is Risky

It is true that getting infected by COVID-19 imparts strong natural immunity for at least 6-8 months. However, there are a few caveats :

  • not everyone develops natural immunity – 1% to 10% will not develop neutralising antibodies.
  • its protection is not guaranteed – 10% to 20% can get reinfected within 7 months
  • immunity is greatly reduced in the elderly – up to 50% of people over 65 years in age can be reinfected.

There is also that pesky problem with natural immunity – you have to get infected with COVID-19, which has an average mortality risk of 2.2% – 22 people out of every thousand infected people will die.

Recommending that people develop natural immunity is as asinine as asking people NOT to wear seatbelts so that they will develop stronger bones after fracturing them in car accidents… if they survive them!

Fact #8 : Attenuated Virus Protein Vaccine Does Not Exist

In order not to appear as an antivaxxer, Captain Ang proffered a red herring – he’s in favour of the attenuated virus protein vaccine.

Only trouble is – there is NO SUCH THING as an attenuated virus protein vaccine!

He probably mixed it up with the live attenuated virus vaccine, which is a vaccine that uses a weakened virus (not a protein) to trigger immunity.

While such a live attenuated virus vaccine can elicit a strong immune response, it cannot be used in people with compromised immune system because it can trigger the very disease it seeks to protect you from

In any case, there is no approved live attenuated virus vaccine for COVID-19, so he was basically suggesting that none of the current COVID-19 vaccines are good, and that is simply FALSE.

All approved COVID-19 vaccines have been proven through clinical trials to be safe and effective.

 

Fact #9 : Ivermectin Has Not Been Proven To Work Against COVID-19

Ivermectin has been shown to work against COVID-19 in vitro studies (labs studies), but does NOT improve clinical outcomes or prevent transmission.

That is why the WHO and practically the vast majority of health authorities around the world do NOT advocate using ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19.

In fact, the FLCCC cheerleader himself – Dr. Pierre Kory – was INFECTED WITH COVID-19 despite taking ivermectin as prophylaxis!

Dr. Kory also admitted that ivermectin is failing to prevent infections from “new variants”, and that the FLCCC Alliance members are “demoralized and frightened“.

Read more : Dr. Pierre Kory Gets COVID-19, Despite Taking Ivermectin!

 

Now that you know the truth, please SHARE this fact check with your family and friends, so they won’t fooled by fake news about COVID-19 vaccines and ivermectin!

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Fact Check | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Did Malaysia Approve Ivermectin For COVID-19?!

Did Malaysia just approve ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment? Find out what the FACTS really are!

 

Claim : Malaysia Approved Ivermectin For COVID-19!

This is the viral message that is circulating on WhatsApp, with a link to a FreeMalaysiaToday article, called “Hospitals can apply for ‘off-label use’ of Ivermectin, says health ministry“.

It is very long, so just skip to the next section for the facts!

Woohoo!! GOOD NEWS!! IVERMECTIN is being recognised!!

Malaysia bucks the tide of heavy Pharma lobby and Approves IVERMECTIN!!

 

Truth : Malaysia Did Not Approve Ivermectin For COVID-19!

The truth is this is an “updated” combination of two prior fake news :

This time, the fake news creator blatantly claims that Malaysia has approved ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.

The entire piece is nothing but fake news, and here are the facts…

Fact #1 : Malaysia Did Not Approve Ivermectin To Treat COVID-19

First, it must be made clear – Malaysia did NOT approve ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment or prophylaxis.

You cannot legally get a prescription for ivermectin to treat COVID-19 in Malaysia. In fact,  it is ILLEGAL to sell ivermectin for human use in Malaysia.

Read more : Illegal Ivermectin Sale : Up to RM50K Fine + 5 Years Jail!

Fact #2 : Hospitals Have To APPLY To Use Ivermectin To Treat COVID-19

The Malaysia Ministry of Health (KKM) did not “allow” hospitals to use ivermectin as an “off-label” treatment of COVID-19.

They only said that hospitals can APPLY to the Drug Control Agency (DCA) for the “off-label” use of ivermectin.

KKM also said that the use of off-label medication “must be done in a monitored environment“.

Fact #3 : Off-Label Application Has Long Existed

The ability for hospitals to apply for off-label use of medications have long existed.

This permission to apply for off-label use isn’t something new, or exclusive to ivermectin.

Read more : Ivermectin Triple Therapy by Professor Borody!

Fact #4 : Informed Patient Consent Is Required

As off-label use of medicine can be detrimental to the patient, it is important for the doctor to inform the patient of the risks and obtain his/her consent.

The treating physician in the hospital is required to fully explain the risks to the patient, who must then consent to the off-label use of ivermectin before it can be administered.

The signed consent form is then kept as part of the patient’s record.

Fact #5 : Ivermectin Mechanism Of Action Has Not Been Determined

The person who wrote the fake message claimed that ivermectin acts against COVID-19 in 3 ways. Its mechanism of action is currently unconfirmed.

There is no evidence that ivermectin will disrupt virus replication, which occurs after the cell is infected.

There is also no evidence that ivermectin will “flush out the viral debris”, or that it is the dead virus that causes a cytokine storm.

And there is also no evidence that the (proposed) anti-inflammatory properties of ivermectin can heal tissue damage.

Fact #6 : COVID-19 Breathing Difficulties Caused By Pneumonia + ARDS

The fake news writer claims that ivermectin helps to “ease the air duct congestion“. It suggests that he/she falsely believes that COVID-19 creates asthma-like breathing difficulties.

Breathing difficulty in COVID-19 is caused by pneumonia and/or ARDS (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome).

COVID-19 causes damage to the blood vessels, causing them to fluid into your lungs. The fluid fills the air sacs in your lungs, which limits their ability to take in oxygen.

You start getting breathless and ARDS develops, leaving you unable to breathe on your own. This is when you require oxygen support, or mechanical ventilation.

Photo Credit : Oxford University

Fact #7 : Ivermectin Has Not Been Proven To Work Against COVID-19

Ivermectin has been shown to work against COVID-19 in vitro studies (labs studies), but does NOT improve clinical outcomes or prevent transmission.

That is why the WHO and practically the vast majority of health authorities around the world do NOT advocate using ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19.

Read more : Latest Ivermectin COVID-19 Study : What Does It Really Say?

Fact #8 : Ivermectin Has Not Been Tested Against COVID-19 Variants

The fake news writer claims that with ivermectin “all those scary new variants don’t have to be scary anymore.

What he/she left out was the fact that ivermectin has NOT been tested against COVID-19 variants!

In fact, the Internet’s most prominent cheerleader of ivermectin – Dr. Pierre Kory, was infected by COVID-19 despite being on FLCCC ivermectin prophylaxis!

Other people who took ivermectin to protect against COVID-19 ended up dying, or developed severe COVID-19!

Read more : Dr. Pierre Kory Gets COVID-19 Despite Taking Ivermectin!

 

Fact #9 : Ivermectin Isn’t That Safe

The fake news writer claimed that “In 30 years of using ivermectin for humans, there have been minimal reports of adverse reactions.

That’s probably because no one has been stupid enough to self-medicate using ivermectin!

Now that so many people are self-medicating with ivermectin, we are getting reports of :

In fact, it is DANGEROUS for people like Major Mior Rosli and Dr. Kenny Yong to claim that it is safe to take 10 or 15 ivermectin tablets!

Read more : FLCCC Allegedly Said 15 Ivermectin Tablets Safe To Take?!

Fact #10 : 32 Countries Are Not Using Ivermectin To Combat COVID-19

There is no evidence that 32 countries have officially used ivermectin to combat COVID-19, much less reported any success with it.

Countries that ivermectin proponents have been promoting – India, Peru, Mexico, Chile, Brazil, South Africa – have all failed to control COVID-19.

Just look at their COVID-19 case numbers below. Does it look like ivermectin helped them at all?

In fact, India dropped the use of ivermectin on 27 May 2021, after it proved to be ineffective against their COVID-19 surge.

Read more : MAECC Ivermectin Briefing : Control COVID-19 In 6 Weeks?

Fact #11 : Current Vaccines Offer Good Protection Against Delta Variant

Major Rosli’s claim that current vaccines do not protect against the more dangerous Delta variant is FALSE.

Public Health England’s data have shown that the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines offer robust protection against the Delta variant, after two doses.

Read more : Why Delta Variant Causes MORE Breakthrough Infections!

COVID-19
Variant
Symptomatic
COVID-19
Hospitalisation
1 Dose 2 Doses 1 Dose 2 Doses
Alpha (UK) 50% 66% 76% 86%
Delta (India) 33% 60% 71% 92%

Fact #12 : Australia Does Not Use Ivermectin Against COVID-19

Australia does NOT use ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19.

Here is the 1 June 2021 conclusion on ivermectin by the Australian Department of Health :

There is currently insufficient evidence to support the safe and effective use of ivermectin, doxycycline and zinc (either separately, or in combination) for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19.

More robust, well-designed clinical trials are needed before they could be considered an appropriate treatment option.

Fact #13 : Singapore Does Not Use Ivermectin Against COVID-19

Singapore does NOT use ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19.

Here is the 18 June 2020 conclusion from the Singapore Ministry of Health’s COVID-19 Rapid Review :

There is insufficient high-quality evidence to show chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine are effective for post-exposure prophylaxis or treatment of COVID-19.

Instead, evidence to date suggests the use of these agents is associated with more harms than standard of care.

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund.

Is Pfizer Making Copy Of Ivermectin To Treat COVID-19?

Is Pfizer making a copy of ivermectin that they can patent as a drug to treat COVID-19?

Take a look at this viral claim, and find out what the FACTS really are!

 

Claim : Pfizer Is Making Copy Of Ivermectin To Treat COVID-19!

People are sharing this claim and a Twitter post by Pfizer on WhatsApp… AGAIN, after fake news circulated that Pfizer bought ivermectin factories.

Ivermectin by Pfizer is coming. They know it works. So they have to create a copy to make $. So blatantly obvious who had been censoring this drug. Read the comments.

 

Fact : Pfizer Is NOT Making Copy Of Ivermectin Copy To Treat COVID-19!

Like 99% of the viral news on ivermectin, this is yet another example of FAKE NEWS.

Here are the facts…

Fact #1 : Pfizer Is Not Making A Copy Of Ivermectin

Anyone who clicks on the link in the Pfizer tweet will quickly realise that Pfizer is not making a copy of ivermectin at all.

But the fake news creator is counting on the fact that most people don’t bother to read beyond the viral message, or fact check before sharing.

It is now being recirculated to back up the fake claims that Pfizer bought up ivermectin factories.

Read more : Did Pfizer Buy Up All Production Facilities For Ivermectin?

Fact #2 : Pfizer Is Making Two Protease Inhibitors

Pfizer scientists are working on two SARS-CoV-2 protease inhibitors :

  • PF-07321332, which is orally administered, and
  • PF-07304814, which is intravenously-administered.

They are both not related to ivermectin, which is an anti-parasitic drug derived from the Streptomyces avermitilis bacteria.

Fact #3 : Ivermectin Works Differently From Protease Inhibitors

Ivermectin works differently from protease inhibitors.

Ivermectin works by binding to, and opening, the glutamate-gated chloride channels of nerve and muscle cells, increasing the flow of chloride ions that paralyses the affected tissue.

The Pfizer protease inhibitors work by binding to proteolytic enzymes used by the SARS-CoV-2 virus to replicate. This prevents the virus from replicating in the infected cells, stopping the infection and preventing transmission.

Fact #4 : There Is No Censorship Of Ivermectin

There isn’t any censorship of ivermectin, which is why fake news on ivermectin has been allowed to proliferate on social media.

Not a day goes by when I do not see fake news on ivermectin being shared on Facebook or WhatsApp or Telegram.

Does that look like censorship to you? Or a sad lack of censorship and common sense?

Fact #5 : Ivermectin Not Proven To Work Against COVID-19

Ivermectin has been shown to work against COVID-19 in lab (in vitro) studies, but does NOT improve clinical outcomes or prevent transmission.

That is why the WHO and the vast majority of health authorities around the world DO NOT advocate using ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19.

Read more : Latest Ivermectin COVID-19 Study : What Does It Really Say?

Fact #6 : New Drugs Require Approval

It doesn’t make sense for Pfizer to make a patentable copy of ivermectin. Unless it is significantly better than ivermectin, no one will buy their patented copy of ivermectin.

It would also require considerable resources for them to get the new “ivermectin copy” tested and approved.

If ivermectin really works, it would be better for Pfizer to simply produce ivermectin. After all, they no longer need to pay Merck for the patent!

Now, do you see why this is just ridiculously stupid fake news?

Please SHARE this article, to warn your family and friends about this viral fake news!

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Fact CheckTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Did Pfizer Buy Up All Ivermectin Production Facilities?!

Did Pfizer just buy up all production facilities for ivermectin, to increase prices or to destroy it?

Find out what’s the new viral claim, and what the FACTS really are!

 

Claim : Pfizer Just Bought Up All Production Facilities For Ivermectin!

People are sharing a video of Laura-Lynn & Friends show that was posted on 31 August 2021, with this message :

Breaking: Pfizer just bought all of the production facilities for Ivermectin…

Here is a short clip of Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson making that claim about 33 minutes into her Passport to Hell video.

And here is my transcript of what she said :

Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are sold over-the-counter in Mexico and Costa Rica. Different places in the world – India, Uganda, Africa – they’ve been taking hydroxychloroquine for years, millions of them, decades, and they don’t have a high incidence of COVID-19.

I just heard today, I don’t know if any of you – you guys are so fast – cause I heard it right before I went to air, that Bill Gates has, no no no… it’s Pfizer, Pfizer has purchased the ivermectin organisation or the plants or you know where they create it, or something like that.

I just heard Pfizer has invested in that, uh huh (listening to her earpiece). So that’ll will be interesting – whether they jack the prices up on everything, or destroy it.

 

Truth : Pfizer Did NOT Buy Any Ivermectin Production Facility!

The truth is Pfizer did NOT buy any production facility for ivermectin.

Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson appears to have made up the story, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : Pfizer Does Not Make Ivermectin At All

First, let me just state it very clearly – Pfizer does not make ivermectin at all.

You can verify this by simply checking the full Pfizer product list.

Pfizer is also NOT making a copy of ivermectin to treat COVID-19.

Read more : Is Pfizer Making Copy Of Ivermectin To Treat COVID-19?

Fact #2 : Pfizer Did Not Buy Any Ivermectin Production Facility

Pfizer is a public-listed company, and would have to disclose any purchase of companies or assets like a factory / production facility to their shareholders.

If you take but 5 seconds to check their public press releases, you can see that Pfizer did not purchase any ivermectin production facility.

For example, Pfizer announced on 23 August 2021 that they purchased Trillium Therapeutics Inc. Just in case you are wondering, Trillium makes cancer treatments, not ivermectin.

Fact #3 : Pfizer Does Not Need To Buy Ivermectin Production Facility

If Pfizer decides to make ivermectin, they don’t need to buy any production facility.

Pfizer has more than 35 manufacturing facilities across 6 continents – most, if not all, of which are capable of churning out ivermectin if they so wish it.

Fact #4 : Hundreds Of Companies Make Ivermectin

Hundreds of pharmaceutical companies and compounding pharmacies manufacture ivermectin globally. India alone has 105 different brands of ivermectin!

It is therefore IMPOSSIBLE for even a big pharmaceutical company like Pfizer to buy up even a fraction of companies making ivermectin.

For Laura’s benefit – there is no such thing as an ivermectin organisation.

Fact #5 : Anyone Can Make Ivermectin

Even if they somehow buy over every single company currently manufacturing ivermectin, they cannot stop new companies from making it!

Ivermectin is an easy and cheap drug to make, and is patent-free. So virtually any small company, even a compounding pharmacy, can make it!

Fact #6 : Hydroxychloroquine Does Not Work Against COVID-19

Despite Laura’s bold claim – hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been proven NOT to work against COVID-19.

  • Prophylaxis : HCQ showed little to no effect in preventing COVID-19 in 6 trials with more than 6,000 participants
  • Treatment : HCQ did not reduce mortality or duration of mechanical ventilation in 30 trials with more than 10,000 COVID-19 patients.

The results were so clear-cut that the WHO stopped the hydroxychloroquine arm of the Solidarity Trial in June 2020.

Fact #7 : Ivermectin Not Proven To Work Against COVID-19

Ivermectin has been shown to work against COVID-19 in lab (in vitro) studies, but does NOT improve clinical outcomes or prevent transmission.

That is why the WHO and the vast majority of health authorities around the world DO NOT advocate using ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19.

Read more : Latest Ivermectin COVID-19 Study : What Does It Really Say?

Please SHARE this fact check with your family and friends, so they won’t get fooled by Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson!

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Fact Check | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

CDC Reports 5X Increase In Ivermectin Poisoning Cases!

The US CDC just warned of a 5X increase in ivermectin poisoning cases from a 24X surge in ivermectin prescriptions!

Here is what you need to know about why ivermectin is causing so many poisoning cases!

 

CDC : 24X Increase In Ivermectin Prescriptions!

On 26 August 2021, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a critical warning.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic started, there was only an average of 3,600 ivermectin prescriptions per week.

It has now reached 88,000 ivermectin prescriptions in the week ending 13 August 2021 – 24X higher than the pre-pandemic baseline.

This does NOT even include the use of ivermectin-based veterinary products.

 

CDC : 5X Increase In Ivermectin Poisoning Cases!

Coupled with the massive increase in ivermectin use from prescriptions and veterinary products, is a huge 5X increase in ivermectin poisoning cases.

According to the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC), there was :

  • a 3X increase in the number of ivermectin poisoning cases in January 2021, and
  • a 5X increase in the number of ivermectin poisoning cases in July 2021.

These reports of ivermectin poisoning were associated with adverse effects and visits to emergency departments or hospitals. The CDC shared two examples :

  • An adult drank an injectable ivermectin formulation intended for use in cattle in an attempt to prevent COVID-19 infection. This patient presented to a hospital with confusion, drowsiness,  visual hallucinations, tachypnea, and tremors. The patient recovered after being hospitalized for nine days.
  • An adult patient presented with altered mental status after taking ivermectin tablets of unknown strength purchased on the internet. The patient reportedly took five tablets a day for five days to treat COVID-19. The patient was disoriented and had difficulty answering questions and following commands. Symptoms improved with discontinuation of ivermectin after hospital admission.

 

CDC : DO NOT Take Ivermectin For COVID-19!

The CDC wants everyone to understand that ivermectin currently has NOT been proven to prevent to treat COVID-19.

They stress that ivermectin that is formulated for skin or veterinary use, must not be consumed.

In addition, people taking ivermectin should watch out for signs of poisoning, and immediately seek medical attention :

  • gastrointestinal effects : nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhoea
  • neurological effects : tremors, seizures, hallucinations, confusion, loss of coordination and balance, decreased alertness, and coma
  • headache, blurred vision, dizziness, fast heart rate, low blood pressure

Instead of taking ivermectin for COVID-19, they are asking that people get vaccinated against COVID-19, because it is a proven and effective way to prevent COVID-19, including the Delta variant.

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!