Tag Archives: The Lancet

Why COVID-19 vaccine autopsy paper got retracted again!

Find out why the controversial autopsy paper which claims to show that 74% of deaths were due to the COVID-19 vaccine got retracted again!

COVID-19 Vaccine Autopsy Paper Got Retracted Again!

People are sharing a post (archive) on X (formerly Twitter) by the McCullough Foundation, which announced that its autopsy paper which claims to show that 74% of deaths were due to the COVID-19 vaccines is being retracted for the “second” time!

McCullough Foundation:

BREAKING – Elsevier and Forensic Science International to CENSOR and RETRACT our groundbreaking autopsy study, marking the second censorship attempt following its initial suppression on the LANCET preprint server.

This represents a flagrant violation of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.

The Biopharmaceutical complex does not want people to know that COVID-19 vaccines cause death. Their heinous actions to hide the truth will greatly backfire.

To be retracted shortly

Why COVID-19 Vaccine Autopsy Paper Got Retracted Again!

I have earlier covered in detail why this controversial autopsy paper which claims to show that 74% of deaths were due to the COVID-19 vaccines got retracted again.

I highly encourage you to read both pieces, but in case you are short of time, here’s a quick summary why it was inevitable that this COVID-19 vaccine autopsy paper would get retracted by any reputable scientific journal.

This was a “revised” version of an earlier preprint paper, which was removed by The Lancet in July 2023, because the paper violated its screening criteria, and its conclusions were not supported.
The authors only went through other people’s papers on autopsies, and made personal judgements on what caused those deaths, based solely on what they read.
They only looked at vaccinated people, and excluded unvaccinated people, which introduces bias, and makes it impossible to determine if there is even a signal that those deaths were due to the COVID-19 vaccines.
They did not mention using any objective and standardised criteria for determining whether a death is caused by the COVID-19 vaccine.
When the same group of researchers posted a review of 28 autopsies that they determined were “likely caused by COVID-19 vaccination”, it was found that many of them had unrelated causes of death!
The mean age of death was 70.4 years, which meant that most of the people in this study were elderly. Is it any surprise that the elderly were dying from cardiovascular, haematological, or respiratory problems???

In short, there are so many problems with this paper that it is truly surprising it even passed peer review and was published in Forensic Science International.

While the study authors are claiming “censorship”, the retraction of a flawed study is not censorship. It is simply part of the scientific review process, albeit a belated correction.

You might have thought that FSI editors would be more wary after a preprint version of this paper with the same title from the same group of researchers got kicked out of Preprints with The Lancet.

While I’m glad this incredibly flawed paper is finally being retracted, I wished I could say it was better late than never. The truth is – this is like shutting the barn door after the horses have bolted.

The authors and anti-vaccine activists have already squeezed whatever publicity, prestige, page views, etc. they can get out of its publication. No one is going to do an apology tour after this paper gets retracted.

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 | 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!

Were Majority Of Long COVID Patients Vaccinated?!

Leave a reply

Did a new study just show that majority of Long COVID patients were vaccinated?! Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

Claim : Majority Of Long COVID Patients Were Vaccinated!

People are sharing an Epoch Times article, which claims that a study just found that majority of Long COVID patients were vaccinated!

Here is an excerpt from the Epoch Times article, which people are using to suggest or imply that the COVID-19 vaccines are either useless, or increase the risk of developing Long COVID.

Study Finds Majority of Patients With Long COVID Were Vaccinated

Mass vaccination and available antiviral treatments have not prevented vaccinated individuals from experiencing lingering COVID-19 symptoms.

A recent study found that the majority of patients who suffered from long COVID during a time when vaccines and antiviral treatments were widely available were vaccinated.

The observational study published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine, researchers interviewed 390 people in Thailand who contracted COVID-19 during the “fifth wave of the COVID-19 pandemic” when the omicron variant was dominant. Patients were followed by phone from three months after their diagnosis for a year to monitor their physical condition, mental health, sleep disturbances, and quality of life.

Out of 390 people with COVID-19, 377 (97 percent) were vaccinated, 383 (98 percent) underwent antiviral treatment, and 330 (78 percent) developed long COVID syndrome. The most frequently reported symptoms were fatigue and cough. Other reported symptoms included depression, anxiety, and poor sleep quality. The study found that patients under age 60 with a cough as an initial symptom were more likely to develop the condition. In a subset of patients with long COVID, researchers found a notable correlation in females with headaches, dizziness, and brain fog.

Studies Link Long COVID to Vaccination

A February report published by the CDC found that more than 8 percent of participants in seven U.S. states reported having experienced long COVID symptoms. In West Virginia, almost 11 percent of survey participants reported long COVID symptoms. However, the agency did not disclose whether survey respondents were vaccinated.

In a February 2023 study published in the Journal of Medical Virology, researchers analyzed the levels of spike protein and viral RNA in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with and without long COVID. They found that spike protein and viral RNA were more likely to be present in patients with long COVID.

In an August 2023 study published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, researchers found the risk of long COVID was lower in those who had previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the risk of getting long COVID did not differ by vaccination status. Researchers found that unvaccinated people infected with omicron had the lowest risk of long COVID.

In a 2023 study in the European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences, researchers studied the serum of 81 individuals with long COVID. They found viral spike protein in one patient after the infection had cleared despite having a negative COVID-19 test, and vaccine spike protein in two patients two months after vaccination.

In a December 2022 study published in PLoS One, researchers found patients were more likely to experience long COVID if they had preexisting medical conditions, a higher number of symptoms during the acute phase of COVID-19 illness, if their infection was more severe or resulted in hospitalization, or if they had received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine.

Show less

Truth : Vaccines Reduce Risk Of Long COVID!

Let’s take a look at the claims made in the Epoch Times article, and find out what the facts really are!

Fact #1 : It Was An Observational Study By Telephone

Let me start by pointing out that the study in question was an observational study that was conducted by telephone. You can read the paper in full – Long-COVID Prevalence and Its Association with Health Outcomes in the Post-Vaccine and Antiviral-Availability Era by Ramida Jangnin et. al.

This is important because it appears that the 390 patients were not clinically diagnosed with Long COVID. Rather, they were diagnosed with COVID-19, and the researchers interviewed them by “telephone every three months for a period of one year“.

In short – the reliability of the Long COVID diagnosis is highly dependent on what the patients reported, or are willing to tell the researchers. In addition, the list of physical and mental symptoms the researchers looked at are not exclusive to Long COVID, and may be manifestations of pre-existing or unrelated ailments:

physical : fatigue, cough, sore throat, rhinorrhea (runny nose)
mental : attention deficit, sleep disturbance, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder

Observational studies like this cannot prove causality. Perhaps that’s why the study authors themselves pointed out that further prospective research is needed to establish any causality.

However, given the observational nature of our study, further prospective research is needed to establish causal relationships, and longitudinal studies are advised to track the evolution of long-COVID symptoms over time.

To be clear – you cannot use observational studies like this as evidence of causality. This study does not show that COVID-19 vaccines cannot prevent Long COVID. Neither does it show that COVID-19 vaccines increase the risk of Long COVID.

Fact #2 : Study Did Not Look At Vaccine Effect On Long COVID

I should also point out that this Thai study was not actually designed to look at the effect of COVID-19 vaccination alone on Long COVID.

Not only did it not have a control group of unvaccinated people, almost all of its participants received both COVID-19 vaccinations and antiviral treatment!

In fact, the study did not mention whether anyone was unvaccinated. So it is highly likely that all its participants were at least either fully-vaccinated, or had antiviral treatment!

The cohort consisted of 390 participants… Among them, 96.7% (n = 377) were vaccinated, and 98.2% (n = 383) underwent antiviral treatment.

So how do we know if the Long COVID was caused by the COVID-19 infection itself, the COVID-19 vaccines, or the antiviral treatment? We don’t, because this observational study was never designed to elicit such information in the first place!

Fact #3 : Almost All Study Participants Were Vaccinated!

I should stress yet again, that almost all of the participants (94.8%) in this Thai study were fully vaccinated:

40.5% received two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, while
54.3% received two doses, and a booster dose.

This is important because such a study would inevitably show that people who were vaccinated can suffer from Long COVID. That doesn’t mean that the vaccines cause Long COVID.

If the same study was conducted on only male patients, it would show that only men had Long COVID. Would that mean that only men get Long COVID? Of course, not. That is only the perception that you may get if the study was conducted on only men.

Fact #4 : Studies Do Not Link Long COVID To Vaccines

The Epoch Times article included a list of studies it claimed or suggested show a link between Long COVID and vaccination. That’s not accurate:

The February 2024 report by the CDC did not link Long COVID to vaccination. In fact, the CDC report pointed out that “information about COVID-19 vaccination … is not included in this report“.

The February 2023 study published in the Journal of Medical Virology only looked at levels of spike proteins and viral RNA in COVID-19 patients. It did not mention anything about vaccines, or link Long COVID to vaccination.

The August 2023 study published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases only showed that that the risk of Long COVID was higher with the wild-type SARS-CoV-2, compared to the Alpha, Delta and Omicron variants. It did not show a link between COVID-19 vaccines and Long COVID.

The 2023 study in the European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences only identified viral spike protein in one COVID-19 patient, and vaccine spike protein in two patients after COVID-19 vaccination, out of 81 Long COVID patients. It did not show a link between the Long COVID and vaccination.

The December 2022 study in PLoS One did not conclude that receiving COVID-19 vaccines was a predictor of long COVID, calling it “an observational paradox” and a “collider bias” due to their study only looking at patients who received hospital care. I wrote an extensive article on this earlier, after The Epoch Times (again?!) covered it as “a new study“.

Fact #5 : Studies Have Shown Vaccines Reduce Long COVID Risk

Many prior studies, involving millions of people – both vaccinated and unvaccinated, have concluded that COVID-19 vaccines reduce the risk of Long COVID.

A March 2024 study published in The Lancet, involving over 20 million people in the UK, Spain and Estonia, concluded that “vaccination against COVID-19 consistently reduced the risk of long COVID symptoms, which highlights the importance of vaccination to prevent persistent COVID-19 symptoms, particularly in adults“.

A February 2024 study published in Nature Communications, involving 1.1 million patients in Hong Kong, provided “real-world evidence supporting the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing the risk of long-term health consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection and its persistence following infection“.

A March 2023 meta-analysis of 17 different studies on the effects of vaccines on Long COVID concluded that:

The evidence presented herein recommends SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for the prevention of long COVID in breakthrough cases. Furthermore, evidence does not support that SARS-CoV-2 vaccination exacerbates long COVID symptoms. Thus, most patients with long COVID should be vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2.

As you can see – much larger studies have already shown that COVID-19 vaccines not only do not increase the risk of Long COVID, getting vaccinated will actually reduce your risk of getting Long COVID should you get infected.

Hence, it is no surprise that the US CDC has pointed out that “Vaccination offers protection against the prolonged effects of #COVID19“.

Fact #6 : The Epoch Times Is Known For Misinformation

The Epoch Times, a media company associated with the Falun Gong religious movement, is known for promoting conspiracy theories and misinformation. Here are some Epoch Times articles that I have fact checked in the past:

I would highly recommend that you do not believe, or share, any articles published or promoted by The Epoch Times, without first verifying their accuracy and the facts.

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 | 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!

Did Autopsies Show COVID-19 Vaccines Caused Deaths?!

Leave a reply

Did autopsies just show COVID-19 vaccines likely causing deaths in 100% of vaccine myocarditis cases?!

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

Claim : Autopsies Show COVID-19 Vaccines Caused Deaths!

People are sharing an article by The Epoch Times which claims or suggests that autopsies just showed COVID-19 vaccines likely causing deaths in 100% of vaccine myocarditis cases!

Here are excerpts from the long, rambling article. Please skip to the next section for the facts!

Autopsies Show COVID-19 Vaccines Likely Caused Deaths: Study

Twenty-eight deaths with cardiovascular involvement outlined in medical literature were likely caused by COVID-19 vaccination, according to a new study.

Dr. Peter McCullough, a cardiologist, along with co-authors, reviewed all published autopsy reports featuring myocarditis, or heart inflammation, following COVID-19 vaccination.

After excluding some papers for not meeting prespecified criteria, the group determined that of the remaining 28 patients all likely died from vaccine-induced myocarditis.

The determination came after the doctors performed an independent review of each case.

The available evidence “suggests that there is a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death from myocarditis,” the authors wrote in the paper.

The deaths occurred in China, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, and the United States. They included some sudden deaths.

Mr. Hulscher, Dr. McCullough, and others published a paper in 2023 reviewing 325 autopsies of patients who died after COVID-19 vaccination. That paper was swiftly removed by The Lancet, on whose preprint server the paper was briefly available. The Lancet alleged that the study’s conclusions were “not supported by the study methodology.”

The paper concluded that about three-quarters of the deaths were directly due to COVID-19 vaccination, or that vaccination was a significant contributing cause.

“Our newly published study overcame the headwinds of medical censorship after Elsevier and Lancet retracted our main paper describing the overall population of autopsied deaths,” Mr. Hulscher said.

The group later uploaded the preprint to Zenodo, another server.

The new paper published by ESC Heart Failure only has four authors, compared with nine for the original publication.

Show less

Truth : Autopsies Did Not Show COVID-19 Vaccines Caused Deaths!

This is yet another example of FAKE NEWS created or promoted by anti-vaccine activists, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : An Earlier Version Was Removed By The Lancet

Let me start by pointing out that this study appears to be an “updated” version of an earlier study which was uploaded to Preprints with The Lancet in July 2023.

That earlier study was never published by The Lancet, but was removed because its conclusion was not supported by the methodology, and violated its screening criteria.

This preprint has been removed by Preprints with The Lancet because the study’s conclusions are not supported by the study methodology. Preprints with The Lancet reserves the right to remove a paper that has been posted if we determine that it has violated our screening criteria.

Fact #2 : Researchers Did Not Conduct Those Autopsies

To be clear – both studies were basically document reviews. None of the researchers in both studies actually conducted any of the autopsies. This was what the researchers did in the “improved” Hulscher et. al. study (archive):

search for autopsy reports involving COVID-19 vaccination-induced myocarditis
filter the 1,691 studies they found to just 14 papers covering 28 autopsies
three of the authors (Peter McCullough, Roger Hodkinson, and William Makis) then “independently” reviewed the autopsy reports and determined the “causality” of each case

According to Brian Ward, professor of experimental medicine at McGill University, that likely meant the three of them went through the autopsy reports in separate rooms.

The way they use the word ‘independently’ here simply means that each of the biased individuals sat in a separate room to reach a personal conclusion before sharing their (largely pre-determined) classifications with each other.

Fact #3 : Many Cases Had Other Likely Causes Of Death

Interestingly, if you go through the summary of those 28 autopsy reports, you will quickly see that some of those cases had other likely causes of death:

Nushida Case 1 : This 14 year-old female had Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome (MIS) – a serious condition caused by COVID-19.

Takahashi Case 1 : This man in his 90s died from a dissection of the ascending aorta with pericardial hemotamponade. Basically, he died from a tear in the aorta – the largest blood vessel in his body, which caused blood to compress the heart and prevent it from pumping properly.

Suzuki Case 1 : This 91 year-old man had existing ischaemic heart disease, with severe coronary artery sclerosis, aortic sclerosis, diabetic neuropathy, and a previous history of a heart attack.

Ameratunga Case 1 : This 57 year-old female had a left pleural mass, which could have been a tumour.

Schneider Case 1 : This 65 year-old man had severe coronary artery sclerosis, with massive cardiac hypertrophy, and myocardial infarction scars. Basically, he had severe ischaemic heart disease, and past history of heart attacks.

Schwab Case 5 : This 75 year-old female was found to be infected with HHV-6 (human herpes virus 6) – a known cause of myocarditis.

Hoshino Case 1 : This 27 year-old male had an asymmetrically-enlarged heart with the myxomatous degeneration of the mitral valve, which suggests his heart problems were due to a connective tissue disorder.

Show less

Fact #4 : Vaccine Myocarditis Seen Mostly In Young Males

Myocarditis and pericarditis are known but rare side effects of COVID-19 vaccines. It is mostly seen in adolescent and young male adults, and usually within 7 days of receiving the second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, according to the US CDC.

It is therefore perplexing that this study suggested that quite a number of very elderly patients died from myocarditis caused by the vaccine. It seems more likely that they developed myocarditis from other causes, or died from other causes.

Mörz Case 1 : 76 year-old man who also had encephalitis.

Takahashi Case 1 : Man in his 90s who had dissection of the ascending aorta, and pericardial hemotamponade – both medical emergencies.

Suzuki Case 1 : 91 year-old man with existing ischaemic heart disease

Ameratunga Case 1 : 57 year-old female with a left pleural mass – potentially a tumour?

Schneider Case 1 : 65 year-old man with severe ischaemic heart disease, and past history of heart attacks.

Schwab Case 1 : 46 year-old man died from myocarditis with cardiac muscle damage on the same day he received his first dose?

Schwab Case 2 : 50 year-old female died from myocarditis with cardiac muscle damage just one day after she received her first dose?

Schwab Case 5 : 75 year-old female with HHV-6 infection died from myocarditis with cardiac muscle damage just one day after she received her first dose?

Show less

Fact #5 : Myocarditis Also Occurs Naturally

I should also point out that myocarditis occurs naturally, usually though viral infections (like flu or the common cold), as well as infections by bacteria, fungus, or parasites.

COVID-19 infections aside, the “baseline” of myocarditis in the general population pre-COVID ranged b between 1 to 10 cases per 100,000 individuals per year (source). Of that, about 2.5% of the non-COVID-19 myocarditis will result in death (source).

In other words, we should expect about 375,000 cases of myocarditis worldwide, with approximately 9,375 deaths per year, in the pre-COVID years.

So is it not possible that some of those 28 deaths mentioned by the Hulscher et. al. study may be due to other non-vaccine causes of myocarditis?

Fact #6 : COVID-19 Myocarditis Is More Common

What the study may not tell you is that COVID-19 is known to cause myocarditis. In fact, the CDC reported in September 2021 that COVID-19 patients have nearly 16X the risk of developing myocarditis:

During March 2020–January 2021, patients with COVID-19 had nearly 16 times the risk for myocarditis compared with patients who did not have COVID-19, and risk varied by sex and age.

The findings in this report underscore the importance of implementing evidence-based COVID-19 prevention strategies, including vaccination, to reduce the public health impact of COVID-19 and its associated complications.

The risk of dying from COVID-19 myocarditis (13.54% of cases) is also almost 5X higher than non-COVID-19 myocarditis (2.88% of cases), according to a 2022 German study.

If you are worried about dying from myocarditis, well, you should certainly want to avoid getting a COVID-19 infection!

Fact #8 : Vaccine Benefits Far Outweighs The Risks

Even if we take all those 28 myocarditis cases mentioned in the Hulscher et. al. study at face value, the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination still far outweighs the risk of dying from vaccine myocarditis.

Vaccine myocarditis is rare – the study could only find 28 cases that satisfied its criteria, while myocarditis from COVID-19 infections are far more common.

People suffering from COVID-19 are also almost 5X more likely to die from myocarditis, than people suffering from non-COVID myocarditis (source).

So if you are really worried about myocarditis, or dying from myocarditis, you should definitely get vaccinated against 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 | 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!

Can 4th Vaccine Jab Shut Down Our Immune System?!

Leave a reply

Did the mainstream media just admit that the 4th vaccine jab can shut down our immune system?!

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

Claim : 4th Vaccine Jab Can Shut Down Our Immune System!

Anti-vaccination activists are excitedly sharing this Good Morning America (GMA) video, claiming that the mainstream media has now admitted that the 4th vaccine jab can shut down our immune system!

For your convenience, here is my transcript of the relevant part of the video (at around 1:05) :

People who have high antibody levels… there is the potential – I want to underscore the potential, we haven’t seen any evidence of this immune phenomenon known as tolerance, where if you already have high antibody levels, and you get another booster that your immune system can start to say, well, what am I needed for, and can kind of start to shut down.

https://www.techarp.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/GMA-Can-4th-Vaccine-Dose-Shut-Down-Immune-System.mp4?_=1

Truth : No Vaccine / Booster Jab Can Shut Down Our Immune System!

This is yet another example of FAKE NEWS created by anti-vaccination activists to scare people into not protecting themselves against COVID-19.

Let me share with you the FACTS, and tell you WHY this is just fake news…

Fact #1 : Jennifer Ashton Was A Guest On GMA

First, let me establish some context of the video. It was a Good Morning America (GMA) video, in which Dr. Jennifer Lee Garflen Ashton was a guest.

She is a board-certified obstetrician and gynaecologist, who is also ABC News chief medical correspondent. You will see that stated on the chyron at about 0:08 of the video.

Fact #2 : Video Was On Antibody Surge From 4th Vaccine Dose

The GMA segment was discussing the May 9, 2022 study published in the Lancet, showing that the 4th vaccine dose (a second booster dose) delivered a large surge of antibodies.

Fact #3 : Video Was Recorded On May 10, 2022

The video is actually pretty old, being recorded two months ago – on May 10, 2022.

It was only in July 2022 that anti-vaccination activists stumbled on what Dr. Jennifer Ashton said in that video.

Fact #4 : Tolerance Does NOT Shut Down Immune System

When Dr. Ashton said that your immune system “can kind of start to shut down“, she was referring to your immune system ignoring the vaccine, not that it would actually shut down your immune system.

This phenomenon is known as immune tolerance or immunotolerance, which she also mentioned in the video. It happens when your own immune system no longer reacts to the allergen (like peanut or a vaccine).

If you develop a tolerance to the vaccine, your immune system does not shut down. The vaccine simply does not trigger the immune system to produce additional antibodies. It just goes, “Who cares???”

Fact #5 : Dr. Ashton Said There Was No Evidence Of Tolerance

In the video, Dr. Ashton stated very clearly that “we haven’t seen any evidence of this immune phenomenon known as tolerance“.

She was only mentioning tolerance to explain why the CDC is being cautious and recommending the 4th vaccine dose – a second booster dose – only for 50 years and older, or those who are immunocompromised.

Unfortunately, anti-vaccination activists are twisting her words to convey the false narrative that the 4th vaccine dose can shut down our immune system.

Fact #6 : COV-BOOST Study Showed No Evidence Of Tolerance

The study the GMA video was discussing looked at whether the fourth dose, which is a second booster dose, would deliver a good boost of antibodies, or trigger tolerance and therefore produce little to no additional antibodies.

This study was based on the COV-BOOST trial – a multicentre, blinded, randomised controlled trial (RCT) of third doses, in which there was a sub-study of a fourth dose.

The study, which was peer-reviewed and published in the Lancet, showed that there was no immune tolerance to the 4th vaccine dose.

In fact, it showed that the 4th vaccine dose induced a significant boost in antibody levels, especially for the elderly – those who are 70 years and older.

14 Days After 4th Dose	Less than 70 Years Old	70 Years Old + Above
vs. Day 28 after 3rd Dose	+37%	+68%
vs. Day 0 after 4th Dose	+745%	+1239%

Fact #7 : Anti-Vaccine Claims All Proven False

This is yet another example of anti-vaccination activists twisting the facts to deceive you into believing that vaccines are dangerous.

So far, their COVID-19 vaccine claims have proven to be false… at every instance!

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

And please 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.

Go Back To > Fact Check | 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!

Is Pfizer Making Copy Of Ivermectin To Treat COVID-19?

Leave a reply

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.

If successful, this oral #antiviral therapy could be prescribed at the first sign of infection and provide a new treatment option that can be taken at home.https://t.co/d4e1DfCD0Q pic.twitter.com/DSisI8CPir

— Pfizer Inc. (@pfizer) July 28, 2021

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.

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.

June 2021 study in The Lancet : No improvement in symptoms or clinical outcomes with triple-dose ivermectin
February 2021 study in The Lancet : No difference in transmissibility with double-dose ivermectin.

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.

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.

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 FAQ For Prevention / Treatment Of COVID-19?

Leave a reply

People are sharing an FAQ on how to use ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19.

Find out if this ivermectin FAQ is trustworthy!

Ivermectin FAQ For Prevention / Treatment Of COVID-19?

This is the Ivermectin FAQ for the Prevention / Prophylaxis of COVID-19 that is being shared on social media and WhatsApp.

It is a bit long and full of misleading links (which we removed), so skip to the next section for the FACTS.

Prevention/ Prophylaxis

Adults: ONE 12mg dose every WEEK after food.
Children > 6 years old, dose/weight (0.2 mg/kg per dose*). Eg 15kg=3mg dose

Treatment

Day 1, Day 2 Take TWICE a day. Day 3,4,5 Take Once a day. (Refer Table)

Adults Take 12mg Ivermectin per dose.
Children > 6 years old, dose/weight (0.2 mg/kg per dose*). Eg 15kg=3mg dose

Day 1	Day 2	Day 3	Day 4	Day 5	Day 6-11	Day 12
Morning	Morning	Morning	Morning	Morning	STOP	Resume ONE cap every week
Evening	Evening

Consider also 6 in 1 booster capsule daily to boost body immunity & Health

CAN I TAKE IVERMECTIN AFTER VACCINATION

YES, since there are many new variants of COVID 19, it is advisable to continue taking Ivermectin capsule after food every MONDAY morning.

What if I had COVID 19 positive and recovered?

You are still at risk of reinfection of COVID 19, especially within the next one year. With each new reinfection, your lung organs function deteriorates further. THEREFORE, it is advisable to continue taking Ivermectin capsule after food every MONDAY morning.

Nobel Prize Drug

In 2015, Japanese scientist Satoshi Omura received the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine for his discovery of ivermectin more than 30 years ago.

Ivermectin is included on the WHO’s “List of Essential Medicines”.

Caution and who should not use?

Patients on WARFARIN blood thinner need to monitor INR closely with a doctor.
Anti-tuberculosis & Cholera vaccines should NOT be given same time
Immunosuppressed or organ transplant patients on calcineurin
Ivermectin has been used safely in pregnant women, children, and infants under Dr supervision

Click to read more...

Ivermectin FAQ For COVID-19 : A Recipe For Disaster!

Here is the truth – this ivermectin FAQ is a recipe for disaster, and here are the reasons why!

Fact #1 : No One Knows Who Wrote It

Who came up with this ivermectin FAQ? It’s unsigned and unattributed to any health authority or person.

For certain, it was not written by any major health authority like the WHO, US CDC, US FDA, Public Health England, European Medicines Agency (EMA), TGA Australia, etc.

Would YOU risk your life, or the lives of your family, on the unsolicited advice of an unknown person shared on social media?

Fact #2 : Ivermectin Should Be Taken On Empty Stomach

Right off the bat, the FAQ is already wrong – ivermectin should be taken before food, not after food.

In fact, it’s best not to eat any food for two hours before or after taking ivermectin, for optimal absorption.

Can you trust “medical advice” that cannot even get this simple point correct?

Fact #3 : Protocol Different From Others

This ivermectin protocol is quite different from the one promoted by the loudest and largest pro-Ivermectin group out there – FLCCC.

It is even different from individual ivermectin protocols from pro-ivermectin doctors like Dr. Amir Farid.

Would YOU risk your life, or the lives of your family, on an ivermectin protocol that isn’t even the same as those promoted by ivermectin’s most vocal proponents?

At least if the FLCCC or Dr. Amir Farid’s Ivermectin protocol causes any health concerns, you know who to blame. Who should you blame for following this FAQ?

Fact #4 : 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.

June 2021 study in The Lancet : No improvement in symptoms or clinical outcomes with triple-dose ivermectin
February 2021 study in The Lancet : No difference in transmissibility with double-dose ivermectin.

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.

Fact #5 : Ivermectin Protocol Not Based On Any Study

Medicine doses are calibrated for safety and efficacy though clinical studies.

Currently, no clinical studies have proven that ivermectin works against COVID-19, so we really don’t have any idea what dose or protocol actually works!

The ivermectin protocol in that FAQ is simply made up, with no basis in science. We don’t even know who made it up!

Would YOU risk your life, or the lives of your family, on an ivermectin protocol that has not been backed by any clinical study???

Fact #6 : You Can Get Reinfected Lifelong

The Ivermectin FAQ claims that you are at risk of reinfection by COVID-19 within the next one year. That’s categorically untrue.

Natural immunity to COVID-19 infections is spotty. Four large studies in the US, US and Denmark estimate that :

80%-90% protection from reinfection up to 7 months
50% protection from reinfection in people who are over 65 years old

As long as COVID-19 is prevalent, COVID-19 survivors will be at risk of reinfection. Not just within the next one year, but for as long as there is COVID-19.

That’s why it is recommended to get vaccinated after a COVID-19 infection.

Fact #7 : Ivermectin Not Recommended For Pregnant / Breastfeeding / Children

The ivermectin FAQ claims that ivermectin can be used “used safely in pregnant women, children, and infants“. That’s not true.

Ivermectin is a Pregnancy Category C drug, which has been shown to cause birth defects in mice, rates and rabbits.

Therefore, ivermectin should NOT be used during pregnancy, as its safety in human pregnancy has not been established.

Ivermectin is also excreted in human milk in low concentrations. Therefore, it should not be given to nursing mothers unless the risk of delaying treatment outweighs the possible risk to the newborn.

Finally, ivermectin has not been tested on paediatric patients younger than 6 years old, or weighing less than 15 kg. Therefore, it should NOT be used in children younger than 6 years of age, and certainly not be given to infants.

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.

Go Back To > Health | Facts 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!

Fact Check : Ivermectin Dose + Protocol By Dr. Amir Farid?

Leave a reply

Advice on ivermectin dose and protocol by Dr. Amir Farid is circulating on WhatsApp.

Let’s take a look at his advice, and find out what the FACTS really are!

Claim : Ivermectin Dose + Protocol By Dr. Amir Farid

This ivermectin dose and protocol by Dr. Amir Farid has been circulating on WhatsApp, teaching people how to take ivermectin to prevent and cure COVID-19.

It is rather long, so SKIP to the next section for the FACTS.

IVERMECTIN DOSE & PROTOCOL.
By Dr Amir Farid

(For best absorption, take AFTER FOOD)
Ivermectin is Best as PREVENTION. Can reduce infection by 86%.

Take 12mg/every week, (adult 50kg and above) even after vaccination (because many still get infected, some die, after completing vaccination) until COVID new cases are low.

(If weight is 90 kg or above, take every 5 days instead of weekly)

CLOSE CONTACT, HIGH EXPOSURE RISK.
If you are a close contact, or the risk of exposure is high, take the second dose 2 days after the first dose. Then continue the weekly dose.

EARLY TREATMENT ( COVID POSITIVE)
The earlier you start Ivermectin, the better. Most effective in the first 7 days after exposure to infected person, not from the day symptoms start (which may happen 3-10 days after exposure)

IF POSITIVE BUT NO SYMPTOMS
Take 1tab (12mg)/daily X 5-7 days.
Then continue 1tab/per week for 5 weeks or more to prevent Long COVID.

IF GOT SYMPTOMS
Take 2 tab (24mg)/a day X 5-7 days.
Then continue 1 tab/per week for 5 weeks or more to prevent Long COVID.

Note that late treatment is less effective, but there have been many cases who recovered despite taking Ivermectin late.
So better late than not taking at all.
——
There are other protocols being proposed. I find this is easiest to remember and follow.
——
Some may experience the side-effects of Ivermectin which include nausea, diarrhea, headache, rash etc. Allergic reaction can happen, like for all drugs.

IVERMECTIN
CONTRAINDICATIONS & PRECAUTIONS

Not suitable if:

1. On Warfarin
2. On certain immuno-suppresant drugs
3. Severe liver disease
4. Severe asthma
5. History of severe allergy
6. Pregnant
7. Breast feeding.
8. Children below 5 yrs
9. Children below 15kg weight.

Hope this is clear.

Click to read more...

Fact Check : Ivermectin Dose + Protocol By Dr. Amir Farid?

This advice on ivermectin dose and protocol by Dr. Amir Farid is misleading and dangerous, and here are the FACTS why…

Fact #1 : Ivermectin Not Approved For Human Use In Malaysia

Ivermectin is not approved for human use in Malaysia, only animal use. It is also not approved for use against COVID-19.

However, hospitals can apply for the off-label use of ivermectin, which must be done in a monitored environment.

So it is WRONG for any doctor or medical specialist to advice people to self-medicate with ivermectin, more so using an unapproved protocol.

Fact #2 : Sale Of Illegal Ivermectin Punishable By Fine And/Or Jail

People selling illegal ivermectin in Malaysia are subject to these penalties :

Individuals : Up to RM25,000 and/or 3 years of prison for the first offence, and up to RM50,000 and/or 5 years of prison for subsequent offences
Companies : Up to RM50,000 for the first offence, and up to RM100,000 for subsequent offences.

Fact #3 : Ivermectin Should Be Taken Before Food

Dr. Amir Farid doesn’t seem to know that ivermectin should be taken on an empty stomach!

In fact, it’s best not to eat any food for two hours before or after taking ivermectin, for optimal absorption.

Instead, he is advising people to do the opposite. Can you really trust him to know what he’s talking about?

Fact #4 : Ivermectin Dose + Protocol Not FLCCC Compliant

The main group pushing ivermectin is FLCCC, and Dr. Amir Farid has spoken up in favour of the FLCCC.

However, the ivermectin dose + protocol that he is recommending has NOTHING to do with the FLCCC ivermectin protocol.

FLCCC recommends taking ivermectin just once a month to prevent COVID-19. Dr. Amir Farid is asking people to take it once a week.

FLCCC recommends taking ivermectin just twice after getting infected with COVID-19. Dr. Amir Farid is asking people to take one to two tablets for 5-7 days.

Fact #5 : Ivermectin Dose + Protocol NOT Based On Any Study

Medicine doses are calibrated for safety and efficacy though clinical studies.

However, Dr. Amir Farid’s recommended ivermectin dose and protocol does not appear to be based on any study.

It is not even based on the FLCCC ivermectin protocol, which itself isn’t based on any study either.

So it is unknown why Dr. Amir Farid believes his ivermectin dose and protocol works. There is certainly no proof of it working.

Fact #6 : 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.

June 2021 study in The Lancet : No improvement in symptoms or clinical outcomes with triple-dose ivermectin
February 2021 study in The Lancet : No difference in transmissibility with double-dose ivermectin.

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.

Fact #7 : Dr. Amir Farid Raided For Prescribing Ivermectin

On 16 June 2021, Dr. Amir Farid’s clinic was raided for supplying ivermectin to patients, “falsely claiming that it can prevent COVID-19“.

Dr. Amir Farid confirmed the raid by the Malaysia Health Ministry, but declined to provide further details.

Fact #8 : Dr. Amir Farid Made False Claims In MAECC Briefing

Dr. Amir Farid was part of the first MAECC briefing on ivermectin, where he made several false claims :

Malaysia can recover from the COVID-19 pandemic “in a matter of weeks” if ivermectin is used (false)
doctors swore the Hippocratic oath and must be compliant with the Nuremberg Code and the Helsinki Declaration (false)
it is unethical to insist on more clinical trials to investigate the efficacy of ivermectin (false)

Fact #9 : People Have Overdosed On Ivermectin

Self-medicating with ivermectin can lead to overdosing because the tablets available in most countries, including Malaysia, are formulated for animal use.

In February 2021, the Missouri Poison Center even issued a warning :

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

Fact #10 : Not Safe To Buy Ivermectin Online

Due to the hype in ivermectin, scammers are pushing online sales of ivermectin at ridiculous prices, like the Scam Alert : Ziverdo Kit To Treat COVID-19!.

A single strip usually costs just US$0.30 (RM1.20), but is being sold for anywhere between US$9 to US$25 (RM35 to RM100).

Even worse – there is no way to know if you are actually purchasing ivermectin, or fake tablets labelled as ivermectin.

Those who purchase and consume ivermectin are putting themselves at risk.

So please advise your family and friends NOT to purchase ivermectin. They should instead protect themselves from COVID-19 by getting vaccinated!

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.

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!

Fact Check : LifeSiteNews Promotion Of Ivermectin + FLCCC

Leave a reply

LifeSiteNews is promoting ivermectin and the FLCCC, claiming that it has “proved to be incredibly effective at both preventing and treating COVID-19“.

Let’s go through LifeSiteNews’ claims on ivermectin and FLCCC, and see what the FACTS really are!

LifeSiteNews Promotes Ivermectin + FLCCC

The Catholic anti-abortion website, LifeSiteNews, recently promoted ivermectin and the 5-man FLCCC team that created the ivermectin protocol against COVID-19.

The author, Michael Haynes, even suggested that ivermectin “may well have saved” President Trump’s life“, but “has been subject to widespread suppression and misinformation” to “promote financial revenue over saving lives“.

Fact Check : LifeSiteNews Promotion Of Ivermectin + FLCCC

LifeSiteNews is a well-known purveyor of fake news, so it’s not surprising to see them post fake news on ivermectin and the FLCCC.

Let’s go through the various claims LifeSiteNews made about ivermectin and the FLCCC, and find out what the FACTS really are…

Claim #1 : FLCCC Discovered COVID-19 Causes Inflammation + Blood Clots
Verdict : FALSE

LifeSiteNews claimed that the FLCCC team “realized in March 2020” that COVID-19 causes “organ inflammation and blood clotting“, and they then developed their MATH+ protocol.

The truth is Chinese scientists had long noted that inflammatory response and coagulopathy in COVID-19 patients.

Case in point – this 11 March 2020 study published in the Lancet by Chinese scientists showed that :

50% of people who died from COVID-19 had coagulopathy.
90% of inpatients with COVID-19 pneumonia had coagulopathy.

They also suggested that the coagulopathy was caused by :

systemic pro-inflammatory cytokine responses
ACE2 receptors on myocytes and vascular endothelial cells

This multi-centre cohort study was carried out in Wuhan, during the early days of COVID-19 – in January 2020.

Did the FLCCC publish any paper to document and prove their “realisation” in March 2020? No.

Claim #2 : MATH+ Protocol Made Global Standard Of Hospital Care
Verdict : FALSE

LifeSiteNews quoted Michael Capuzzo, who claimed that the MATH+ protocol developed by FLCCC was made the “global standard of hospital care“. That’s not true.

On 2 September 2020, the WHO strongly recommended the use of systemic corticosteroids in patients with severe and critical COVID-19, but recommended against using systemic corticosteroids in non-severe COVID-19.

The MATH+ protocol is made up of Methylprednisolone, Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C), Thiamine (Vitamin B1) and Heparin.

Methylprednisolone is a corticosteroid and is thus part of the global standard of hospital care for COVID-19.

However, the rest of the MATH+ protocol is NOT part of the global standard of hospital care.

Claim #3 : MATH+ Protocol Proven By Latest Studies
Verdict : FALSE

LifeSiteNews quoted Michael Capuzzo, who claimed that the MATH+ protocol was recommended against by health bodies throughout the world but subsequently made global standard of hospital care, “courtesy of later studies“.

The truth is the use of corticosteroids to treat the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) seen in COVID-19 was born out of experience with the SARS epidemic in 2002 and 2003.

So when COVID-19 hit at the end of 2019, Chinese doctors immediately tried to use corticosteroids to treat their patients.

If you look at the 11 March 2020 Chinese study, you can see that the Chinese already succeeded in using corticosteroids in January 2020!

On top of that, the RECOVERY trial tested eight existing drugs in March 2020, including dexamethasone – a corticosteroid.

By June 2020, researchers were able to confirm that corticosteroids like dexamethasone can reduce mortality in severe and critical COVID-19.

The FLCCC did not run a single clinical trial to prove that the MATH+ protocol works better than just corticosteroids against COVID-19.

Claim #4 : MATH+ Protocol Hailed As Eminently Successful
Verdict : FALSE

LifeSiteNews claimed that the MATH+ protocol was “hailed as eminently successful” and the FLCCC doctors were fast becoming “heroes of the pandemic”.

The truth is – the FLCCC had nothing to do with the success of corticosteroids in treating COVID-19.

The Chinese discovered the efficacy of corticosteroids in treating ARDS in SARS-CoV-1 – which is closely related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

As early as March 2020, they showed that corticosteroids were effective in improving outcomes for COVID-19 patients. This was confirmed by the RECOVERY trial by June 2020.

That’s why the FLCCC is not being feted. They had NOTHING to do with the discovery of corticosteroids as a treatment for COVID-19.

Claim #4 : Ivermectin Proven To Work
Verdict : FALSE

LifeSiteNews wrote about how Dr. Kory from the FLCCC testified before the US Senate Homeland Security Committee in December 2020 that “ivermectin basically obliterates transmission of this virus” and that “if you take it, you will not get sick“.

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

June 2021 study in The Lancet : No improvement in symptoms or clinical outcomes with triple-dose ivermectin
February 2021 study in The Lancet : No difference in transmissibility with double-dose ivermectin.

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.

Claim #6 : Ivermectin Worked In Peru + India
Verdict : FALSE

LifeSiteNews claimed that “thousands, even millions, were given the drug, with COVID cases and deaths plummeting as a result“.

As these latest COVID-19 charts show, that is simply NOT TRUE. Both countries continue to suffer badly from COVID-19.

Despite the use of ivermectin, India suffered a massive and disastrous wave of COVID-19 infections and deaths from March 2021 onwards. That’s why India stopped using ivermectin on 27 March 2021.

Claim #7 : Only New Pharmaceutical Drugs Will Be Approved
Verdict : FALSE

Michael Capuzzo claimed that “the only thing that’s considered to have sufficient evidence or proven efficacy is essentially a big new pharmaceutical drug”. That’s also FALSE.

As I pointed out above, corticosteroids which are patent-free and very cheap, were recommended as a global standard of care by the WHO on 2 September 2020.

I should also point out that the FLCCC ivermectin protocol not only uses VERY LITTLE ivermectin, it requires you to consume 5-6 pills every day, at great cost.

Prophylaxis	US Price
FLACC I-MASK+ Protocol	$1.03 per day $31 per month $375 per year
AstraZeneca Vaccine (2 doses)	$8
J&J Vaccine (1 dose)	$10
Moderna Vaccine (2 doses)	$30
Pfizer Vaccine (2 doses)	$39

Claim #8 : President Trump Was Given Ivermectin
Verdict : FALSE

Michael Capuzzo also claimed that former President Trump was given ivermectin, which “may well have saved the president’s life“.

LifeSite co-founder and president Steve Jalsevac suggested that Capuzzo’s claims could indeed be true, even though Capuzzo provided no reference for his claim.

The treatment that former President Trump received when he was infected with COVID-19 did NOT include ivermectin :

Dexamethasone
Remdesivir
Regeneron REGN-COV2 monoclonal antibodies
Zinc
Pepcid – an antacid
Aspirin
Vitamin D
Melatonin

FLCCC Ivermectin Lies : A Sin In Christianity

LifeSiteNews is well-known purveyor of fake news, and devout Christians should be wary about the lies they tell.

As LifeSiteNews is a faith-based Catholic publication, whose many readers and fans are devout Christians, it would be remiss of me not to remind everyone that…

LYING IN A SIN IN CHRISTIANITY

One of the Ten Commandments state that “thou shalt not beat false witness against thy neighbour“.

And the Bible has many verses on lying :

Proverbs 6:17-19 – Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.

Proverbs 12:22 – The Lord detests lying lips, but he delights in people who are trustworthy.

Proverbs 25:1 – Telling lies about others is as harmful as hitting them with an ax, wounding them with a sword, or shooting them with a sharp arrow.

Peter 3:10 – Whoever would love life and see good days must keep their tongue from evil and their lips from deceitful speech.

Please Support My Work!

If you would like to support my work, you can do so via bank transfer / PayPal / credit card.

Name : Adrian Wong

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

Thank you in advanced! ❤️

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 Delaying AstraZeneca Dose 2 INCREASES Efficacy?

Leave a reply

Many people have asked me to explain WHY delaying the second dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine INCREASES its efficacy.

It sure is a very odd phenomenon, when you think about it!

Delaying AstraZeneca Dose 2 INCREASES Efficacy

Let me start by confirming that yes, delaying the second dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine INCREASES its efficacy.

The AstraZeneca vaccine was originally designed with a 21-day interval between Dose 1 and Dose 2.

However, this Lancet study showed that the AstraZeneca vaccine’s efficacy increased with longer delays between Dose 1 and Dose 2!

I summarised their findings into this table, to show you how the AstraZeneca vaccine’s efficacy changes with the dose interval.

Dose 1 to Dose 2 Interval	Efficacy	Difference	Efficacy Range
< 6 Weeks	55.1%	Baseline	33.0% to 69.9%
6 – 8 Weeks	59.9%	+8.7%	32.0% to 76.4%
9 – 11 Weeks	63.7%	+15.6%	28.0% to 81.7%
≥ 12 Weeks	81.3%	+47.5%	60.3% to 91.2%

Doubling the dose interval from the standard 3-4 weeks increased its efficacy by 8.7% – a small but significant improvement.

The greatest benefits came from even longer dose intervals :

9 to 11 week dose interval : + 15.6% increase in efficacy
12 week dose interval or longer : +47.5% increase in efficacy!

That’s why health authorities changed their guidelines to give the second dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine 12 weeks later, instead of 3 weeks.

Why Delaying AstraZeneca Dose 2 INCREASES Efficacy?

Many people have asked me to explain WHY delaying the second dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine INCREASES its efficacy.

When you think about it – it sure is a peculiar, and rather illogical, phenomenon, isn’t it?

Frankly speaking, no one knows WHY this is the case, and it will be some time before anyone can prove the mechanism of action behind this phenomenon.

Therefore, I can only offer my hypothesis based on what I read in the many AstraZeneca studies.

Vaccines Are Training Camps

First, we must understand that COVID-19 vaccines are just training camps that teach our own immune system how to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

COVID-19 vaccines basically show our immune system what the SARS-CoV-2 virus (or a key part of it, like the famous spike protein) looks like.

Our immune system identifies it as a “foreign enemy” and learns how to make antibodies against it. These antibodies provide some protection against a real SARS-CoV-2 virus attack.

And when a real attack does come, our immune system, which now recognises SARS-CoV-2, can quickly produce even more antibodies to defeat the coronavirus.

First Dose Offers 3 Months Protection?

The same Lancet study also showed that the first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine consistently offers good protection for the first 3 months.

Basically, our immune system remembers the lesson taught by the “first class” (first dose) very well for 3 months.

Time After 1 Dose	Efficacy	Efficacy Range
22 to 30 days	76.7%	47.0% to 89.8%
31 to 60 days	72.8%	32.9% to 89.0%
22 to 90 days	76.0%	59.3% to 85.9%
61 to 90 days	78.3%	36.4% to 92.6%
91 to 120 days	31.6%	-141.8% to 80.7%

So here is my hypothesis.

Since our immune system remembers the lesson from the first dose so well in the first 3 months, it does not benefit much from an early refresher course – the second dose.

A refresher course is important – it reminds our immune system that COVID-19 is a recurrent threat that must be taken seriously, and kicks our memory B-cells out of hibernation.

But as you may recall from your college days – a refresher class a month after the class really isn’t as effective as a refresher class just before the term exam!

And that, I believe, is possibly the reason why a longer dose interval increases the AstraZeneca vaccine’s efficacy – an actual “refresher class” is far more useful to our immune system than a “repeat class”.

A new preprint paper in the Lancet appears to back-up the evidence that longer dose intervals improve the AstraZeneca vaccine’s efficacy.

It showed that longer dose intervals like 15-25 weeks and even 44-45 weeks were associated with higher antibody response when Dose 2 is administered!

Should We Keep Delaying AstraZeneca Dose 2 For More Efficacy?

Now, it is true that the evidence shows that delaying the second dose of AstraZeneca improves its efficacy.

However, and this is very important, we have to balance that against the RISK of getting infected by COVID-19 while we delay taking Dose 2.

The Delta variant, for example, is proving to be particularly problematic. A single dose of AstraZeneca vaccine does not provide good protection against it.

COVID-19 Variant	Symptomatic COVID-19		Hospitalisation
COVID-19 Variant	1 Dose	2 Doses	1 Dose	2 Doses
Alpha (UK)	50%	66%	76%	86%
Delta (India)	33%	60%	71%	92%

Therefore, we cannot keep delaying the second dose of AstraZeneca in hopes of getting better and better efficacy.

The increased efficacy from waiting will be pointless if you get infected before getting that second dose!

That is why many health authorities are now shortening, or planning to shorten, the dose interval for AstraZeneca – sacrificing some efficacy to gain more protection against the Delta variant earlier.

As I detailed in my earlier article – AstraZeneca Vaccine : Accept Or Delay 9 Week Dose Interval? – there really are no simple answers…

Help Support My Work!

If you would like to support my work, you can do so via bank transfer / PayPal / credit card.

Name : Adrian Wong

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

Thank you in advanced! ❤️

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!

Is Ivermectin Prophylaxis Cheap? Here Is What It Really Costs!

Leave a reply

Is ivermectin prophylaxis against COVID-19 really cheap, as its proponents claim?

Take a look at the ivermectin prophylaxis protocol that FLCCC is advocating, and find out what it really costs!

FLCCC Ivermectin Prophylaxis Against COVID-19

Dr. Paul E. Marik of the FLCCC is advocating that health authorities use his I-MASK+ protocol to prevent and treat COVID-19.

For prevention of COVID-19, Dr. Paul Marik is recommending that we take these medication :

Ivermectin : 0.2 mg/kg on day 1, day 3 and then every 4 weeks
Vitamin D3 : 1,000 to 3,000 IU every day
Vitamin C : 2,000 mg every day
Quercetin : 250 mg every day
Zinc : 50 mg every day
Melatonin : 6 mg every night

For early treatment of COVID-19, the doses go way up :

Ivermectin : 0.2 mg/kg on day 1 and day 3
Vitamin D3 : 4,000 IU every day
Vitamin C : 4,000 to 6,000 mg every day
Quercetin : 500 mg every day
Zinc : 100 mg every day
Melatonin : 10 mg every night
Aspirin : 325 mg every day

The standard dose of ivermectin is 0.2 mg/kg, so that is not actually controversial. An adult of 60 kg would therefore require a dose of 12 mg of ivermectin.

Ivermectin Prophylaxis : How Cheap Is It?

Ivermectin proponents insist that its use is being suppressed because its patent ran out, and so Big Pharma does not benefit from its sale.

That is not really true, because all pharmaceutical companies that make ivermectin will make money off it. Even Merck, whose patent ran out in 1996, still makes money off ivermectin.

So let’s ignore the argument about patents. Let’s just look at the cost of the ivermectin prophylaxis protocol that FLCCC is promoting.

Ivermectin is not sold over the counter in many countries, as it is only used in animals. So it is often sold at inflated prices online.

Here is an example I found on Shopee earlier this month. A strip of 10 tablets cost RM150 (US$36). That’s RM15 (US$3.60) per 12 mg tablet.

There may also been reports that some doctors were illegally selling ivermectin at RM35 per tablet (US$8.45), and RM150 (US$36) per strip.

But the good news is FLCCC’s ivermectin prophylaxis actually uses very little ivermectin! You only take it once a month!

Then I took a look at the supplements Dr. Marik showcased in his video to work out their costs :

Nature Made Vitamin D3 (1,000 IU, 300 softgels) : US$10.29
Nature Made Vitamin C (500 mg, 150 tablets) : US$11.66 (up&up brand not available)
Vital Quercetin (250 mg, 100 capsules) : US$29.10
Windmill Zinc Sulphate (50 mg, 90 tablets) : US$7.45
Now Foods Melatonin (3 mg, 180 capsules) : US$9.92

Based on those prices, here is my comparison of the COST of the I-MASK+ prophylaxis protocol versus a selection of COVID-19 vaccines :

Prophylaxis	US Price
FLACC I-MASK+	$1.03 per day $31 per month $375 per year
AstraZeneca Vaccine (2 doses)	$8
J&J Vaccine (1 dose)	$10
Moderna Vaccine (2 doses)	$30
Pfizer Vaccine (2 doses)	$39

As you can see, the ivermectin prophylaxis that FLCCC is promoting costs more than COVID-19 vaccines after just 1 month!

So it really doesn’t make financial sense to choose the FLCCC ivermectin prophylaxis over COVID-19 vaccines.

In fact, the table above shows that it is not the pharmaceutical companies making the big bucks through vaccines, but the SUPPLEMENT INDUSTRY making big bucks from the FLCCC ivermectin prophylaxis!

There is no doubt that the FLCCC ivermectin prophylaxis is ridiculously expensive, and only serves to line the pockets of the supplement industry.

Ivermectin Prophylaxis : Other Issues…

There are other issues with the ivermectin prophylaxis that FLCCC and their supporters are advocating.

Taking Pills Every Day…

The FLCCC calls for people to take ivermectin like a monthly supplement, together with large amounts of vitamin D3, vitamin C and other supplements every single day!

And for how long does FLCCC expect people to pop these pills? Until the pandemic is over? That could be months!

How long do you think people can keep up with the daily regime of popping 5 to 6 pills? What if they forget?

It would be far EASIER for people to simply get vaccinated. Most COVID-19 vaccines require two doses, but some require only one dose.

Would you prefer to just get one or two injections, or consume 5 to 6 pills every single day, until the pandemic is over?

Ivermectin Not Proven To Prevent COVID-19…

The biggest problem with the ivermectin prophylaxis that FLCCC is advocating is that – it hasn’t actually been proven to prevent COVID-19.

The latest Lancet study on high-dose ivermectin – triple of what FLCCC is advocating – showed no difference in clinical outcomes!

This February 2021 study that was also published in The Lancet showed that ivermectin did NOT reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Even more troubling – neither Dr. Marik nor the FLCCC has actually run any clinical trial to test and confirm the efficacy of their ivermectin prophylaxis protocol!

FLCCC Uses Very Little Ivermectin…

What’s even more surprising is how little ivermectin FLCCC is actually using in their ivermectin prophylaxis against COVID-19.

They are not only using the standard ivermectin dose, it is only taken once every 4 weeks! Even if you were exposed, you only take ivermectin for two days!

The bulk of their ivermectin prophylaxis protocol involves eating lots of supplements on a daily basis.

If ivermectin really works against COVID-19, why is it used so little in the FLCCC ivermectin protocol?

Help Support My Work!

If you would like to support my work, you can do so via bank transfer / PayPal / credit card.

Name : Adrian Wong

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

Thank you in advanced! ❤️

Go Back To > Health | Fact Check | Tech ARP

Support Tech ARP!

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

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

Leave a reply

The latest study on the effectiveness of Ivermectin on COVID-19 was just published in The Lancet.

Take a look at what it really said about how effective Ivermectin is in treating COVID-19!

Latest Ivermectin COVID-19 Study On The Lancet

Alejandro Krolewiecki et. al. just published a research paper in The Lancet called “Antiviral effect of high-dose ivermectin in adults with COVID-19: A proof-of-concept randomized trial“.

It is being heralded as more evidence that ivermectin works against COVID-19.

Let’s take a closer look at this study, and find out what it REALLY says about ivermectin and COVID-19…

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

For those who want a simple TLDR summary of this ivermectin study :

This was a small pilot study of just 45 patients who were hospitalised with COVID-19.
It provided additional evidence that high-dose ivermectin of up to 600 µg/kg of ivermectin for 5 days is safe.
Patients responded differently to high-dose ivermectin – about half had low plasma levels, and the other half had high plasma levels.
Low plasma levels of ivermectin showed no ability to reduce SARS-CoV-2 viral load
High plasma levels of ivermectin can reduce SARS-CoV-2 viral load at a higher rate.
High-dose IVM did not improve clinical symptoms, signs or laboratory parameters.
High-dose IVM did not improve clinical outcomes at Day 7 and Day 30.

This study provided some in-vivo evidence to back up earlier in-vitro (in the lab) studies that showed ivermectin inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 in African green monkey kidney cells.

While the study authors believe that the results warrant further research, it is really another nail in the coffin for ivermectin’s efficacy against COVID-19.

Despite tripling the standard dose and using it for 5 doses (instead of a single dose), there was NO IMPROVEMENT in the symptoms or outcome of any of the patient in this study.

Even though the study is small, it helps to confirm that ivermectin’s antiviral property is dependent on plasma level (not dose), and that it appears to be safe when taken as a triple dose for 5 days.

For those who want more details, here is a summary of the Krolewiecki et. al. study on using high-dose ivermectin in adults with COVID-19 :

Purpose Of This Study

To evaluate the antiviral activity of high-dose ivermectin
To evaluate the safety profile of high-dose ivermectin
To evaluate the potential clinical utility of ivermectin in COVID-19
To evaluate the relationship between IVM plasma concentration and COVID-19 viral load

Study Design

Pilot study of 45 participants, recruited between 18 May and 9 September, 2020.
Patients were between 18 and 69 years of age, and had RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19.
Patients were hospitalised but did not require intensive care.
Patients had up to 5 days of COVID-19 symptoms.
Patients did not use any other drugs with potential activity against COVID-19, like immunomodulators, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, remdesivir and azithromycin.
The trial was randomised, but not blinded to both patients or the team treating them.

Ivermectin Dose

Patients in the IVM group received 600 µg/kg of ivermectin for 5 days.
Available data on ivermectin showed that 600 µg/kg is safe when taken for up to 3 days.

Note : Standard treatment for strongyloidiasis or onchocerciasis is a single dose of ivermectin at 200 µg/kg.

Study Results

The high-dose, multi-day ivermectin treatment was well-tolerated, with grade 1 and grade 2 side effects. The most common side effect was rashes of up to 24 hours (10%).
Overall, there was NO difference in viral load between the control group and the IVM group.

Patients who received high-dose ivermectin had different plasma levels
– 11 out of 20 (55%) had less than 160 ng/mL
– 9 out of 20 (45%) had over 160 ng/mL
Patients with lower IVM plasma level (<160 ng/mL) had slightly lower viral load reduction than the control group.
Only patients with higher IVM plasma level (>160 ng/mL) had a “statistically significant” higher viral load reduction than the control group.

This is arguably the most significant finding in this study – patients with higher IVM plasma level (>160 ng/mL) showed significantly higher viral decay rate.

There were no differences in clinical symptoms, signs or laboratory parameters between the control and IVM groups.
There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes at Day 7 and Day 30 between the control and IVM groups.

Help Support My Work!

If you would like to support my work, you can do so via bank transfer / PayPal / credit card.

Name : Adrian Wong

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

Thank you in advanced! ❤️

Go Back To > Fact Check | Health | Tech ARP

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Thank you!