2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic (Vaccination 2021 Edition)

[lil devils x]

Pentagon used taxpayer money meant for masks and swabs to make jet engine parts and body armor
A $1 billion fund Congress gave the Pentagon in March to build up the country’s supplies of medical equipment has instead been mostly funneled to defense contractors and used to make things such as jet engine parts, body armor and dress uniforms.

Among the awards: $183 million to firms including Rolls-Royce and ArcelorMittal to maintain the shipbuilding industry; tens of millions of dollars for satellite, drone and space surveillance technology; $80 million to a Kansas aircraft parts business suffering from the Boeing 737 Max grounding and the global slowdown in air travel; and $2 million for a domestic manufacturer of Army dress uniform fabric.

The Democratic-controlled House Committee on Appropriations has made clear that the Defense Department’s decision to funnel the DPA funding to defense contractors went against its intent in that section of the Cares Act, which was to spur the manufacturing of personal protective equipment.

Pentagon used taxpayer money meant for masks and swabs to make jet engine parts and body armor

So while we still have mass shortages of swabs for testing, masks, and disinfectant, the pentagon chose to funnel money to the military industrial complex instead.
.

 

[lil devils x]

Trump and his goons constantly interfering with the CDC? Tell us something we didn't know already:

"The Trump administration’s bungled response to the coronavirus pandemic and its subsequent efforts to meddle with recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are taking a substantial toll on the nation’s foremost public health institution.

In interviews with half a dozen current and former CDC officials, they described a workforce that has seen its expertise questioned, its findings overturned for political purposes and its effectiveness in combating the pandemic undermined by partisan actors in Washington.

They expressed frustration that the CDC, long an independent voice of dispassionate science, has bent to the whims of an administration that does not acknowledge the severity of a pandemic that has killed more than 200,000 people in the U.S. They have seen guidance revised or removed — most recently this week, when the CDC took down language that acknowledged the virus mainly spreads through aerosol droplets, something the World Health Organization said months ago.

In the early months of the pandemic, senior CDC officials including Principal Deputy Director Anne Schuchat and Nancy Messonnier, the director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, were sidelined after sounding the alarms over the dangers posed by the novel coronavirus.

President Trump publicly downplayed — and continues to downplay — the pandemic, questioning both his own top medical and health experts and the science that shows mask mandates and social distancing work. In private, Trump acknowledged that the virus was far more deadly, according to interviews published by veteran journalist Bob Woodward.

“As I talk to former colleagues at CDC, the feeling I get is just an overwhelming sense of despair. People are working incredibly hard to reduce the impact of the pandemic and the sense that they’re being blocked by people at the political level, and that the work that they’re doing is not being appreciated by the American public,” said Rich Besser, a former CDC director who now runs the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

“The feeling right now is that public health is not being allowed to lead and to demonstrate the path forward to reduce transmission and increase economic activity,” he said.


Officials at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have publicly questioned the CDC’s conclusions, published in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Those reports are sacrosanct documents meant to highlight the agency’s best work and research.

House Democrats have launched an inquiry into potential political interference in the CDC’s publications.

The HHS officials who sought changes to those reports included Michael Caputo, who worked on Trump’s campaign and who arrived at the health agency in April, and his top science adviser, Paul Alexander. Alexander has left HHS, and Caputo has taken medical leave after a bizarre rant on Facebook in which he accused CDC officials of trying to harm Trump’s political standing.

Some current CDC employees pointed to a directive from HHS in August, when guidance recommending that those who came into contact with someone infected by the virus be tested even if they were asymptomatic was quietly removed from the agency’s website. That recommendation was reinstated, after public outcry.

“It’s horrifying. I don’t know of any other situation like this, when things have been dictated to be put on the CDC website that aren’t defensible science. The idea that you shouldn’t test contacts is just indefensible,” said Tom Frieden, who led the CDC during the Obama administration.

The political interference in guidance, and Trump’s pledges that a vaccine will be ready soon — a promise that stands in contrast with CDC Director Robert Redfield’s testimony to Congress last week that a vaccine would not be widely available until next year — is raising concerns over whether the public will accept a vaccine once it becomes available.

“It’s incredibly sad to all of us that the recent guidance is causing a loss of trust for CDC in general. I’m very nervous about what is going to happen when a vaccine is available, especially if the phase three trials are cut short for political reasons,” said a current CDC employee. “Public health messaging is so important and it’s been disregarded since the early days of the pandemic.”

Others at the CDC said political interference has been taking place from the first days of the pandemic. On one incident management call, an official who listened in said Redfield talked about how he had been instructed by Vice President Pence to change CDC guidelines on the size of public gatherings to come in line with the White House coronavirus task force recommendations.

A spokesperson for Pence’s office denied that he instructed Redfield to change any guidance. But in March, the CDC changed its guidance from a limit on public gatherings from 50 people to 10 people — three days after the White House’s task force set the limit at 10.

Despair at CDC after Trump influence: ‘I have never seen morale this low’

The Trump administration’s bungled response to the coronavirus pandemic and its subsequent efforts to meddle with recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are takin…

thehill.com

 

[CaitSeith]

snip

I think we can categorize his actions as bio-terrorism.

 

[Agema]

I note that someone overheard the CDC director, Robert Redfield, say of Trump's new best coronavirus task force buddy Scott Atlas with "Everything he says is false". Anthony Fauci has also criticised Atlas for probably saying things to Trump that are untrue or misleading.

CDC director takes aim at Trump's Covid adviser: 'Everything he says is false'

Robert Redfield overheard criticizing taskforce’s Scott Atlas, while Anthony Fauci concerned at ‘incorrect’ information from Atlas

www.theguardian.com

 

[lil devils x]

Trump and first lady Test Positive for COVID-19

France reports 12,148 infections in 24 hours – as it happened

Health body gives green light to second test that gives results in up to 30 minutes; Spanish capital is Europe’s worst hotspot

www.theguardian.com

 

[Kwak]

Trump and first lady Test Positive for COVID-19

France reports 12,148 infections in 24 hours – as it happened

Health body gives green light to second test that gives results in up to 30 minutes; Spanish capital is Europe’s worst hotspot

www.theguardian.com

 

[lil devils x]

View attachment 1046

I am more worried that this will make his reaction to the Pandemic worse. He has access to the most expensive and best medicine in the world that the majority of people do not thus catching it early for him, it is a good chance they can suppress the virus because he can afford that level of treatment and likely lead to a very mild case for him. If he has a mild case, then he will call everyone else who does not "weak losers" and reduce his pandemic response even further. He already takes for granted what he has access to that others do not, and I see this as likely just make that worse while the masses do not have access to the level of care the President and wealthy do. He is of the ignorant mindset that if he has a mild case that everyone else that didn't deserves to die, as they are now " inferior" to him in his mind. He doesn't understand that people do not have control over how their individual immune systems respond. Even when all other factors are the same ( Nutrition, health environment) their immune response can be very different. Trump having an easy time of it would likely lead to him making future decisions that directly lead to many more deaths mistakenly thinking that his personal experience is representative for all.

It is like those people who are like " I didn't miss a day of work and I had stage 3 cancer" and thinking that applies to everyone while others are so sick they cannot get out of bed because people do not actually have control over how severe they are. This is one of the reasons I cringe when I see " Dig deep and fight cancer" or " they were determined to not let this take them down" because it somehow makes people mistakenly believe they really have control over this, or that the people who died didn't fight as hard as they did. After seeing enough people die, you come to realize that some of them even fought harder and wanted to live more than the ones who survived and their" will to fight and live" isn't what makes the real difference here. Having a positive disposition and outlook and being able to laugh helps reduce toxins helps more than anything else that a patient has control over in terms of willpower, but in the end it is your actual immune response, which you do not control that way, that impacts patients outcomes the most. I don't like the outlook that implies that those who didn't survive did something to cause it to happen, by being " less than" or not trying hard enough" as it is simply not true. Trump is one of those who will likely do this so if this is mild for him, he will likely view them as " lesser than" for it, which is pretty gross when I think about that he controls their resource access in order to survive at all.

 

[Kwak]

I am more worried that this will make his reaction to the Pandemic worse. He has access to the most expensive and best medicine in the world that the majority of people do not thus catching it early for him, it is a good chance they can suppress the virus because he can afford that level of treatment and likely lead to a very mild case for him.

Yeah, let's face it, if the cure were blood from newborns you can bet they would be provided to him.

 

[lil devils x]

Yeah, let's face it, if the cure were blood from newborns you can bet they would be provided to him.

It really would be. I am sure he has no qualms about using the all the things he votes illegal for anyone else if he thinks it will help him. There isn't anything trump wouldn't do if it is his own health at stake.

 

[Agema]

Trump and first lady Test Positive for COVID-19

It's a sad reflection on the times that I'm unsure whether this might be a stunt or not.

Trump claims to have covid-19 when he doesn't, and with no major symptoms comes out boasting about how awesome he is and what perfect genes he got, that he was right all the time about how unimportant masks were, that the hydroxychloroquine he took really worked in reducing symptoms, etc.

 

[lil devils x]

It's a sad reflection on the times that I'm unsure whether this might be a stunt or not.

Trump claims to have covid-19 when he doesn't, and with no major symptoms comes out boasting about how awesome he is and what perfect genes he got, that he was right all the time about how unimportant masks were, that the hydroxychloroquine he took really worked in reducing symptoms, etc.

That can happen even if he really has COVID-19. He has access to the most expensive treatments in the world, 24hr personalized care. They will likely be able to suppress it if caught early and be able to address symptoms as they arise within seconds. You know, all these things that normal people would never have access to. Anyone else however that fares less than him is a " weak, inferior loser" in his mind that doesn't deserve to live. I worry most that his experience will make him mistakenly think he doesn't need to have a pandemic response anymore, and thus remove access to resources they need to survive and it will directly result in many more deaths than should have never happened. It was better when he was terrified of catching it, removing that will only make his response to pandemic even worse since he lacks the ability to understand individual immune response or empathy.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I am more worried that this will make his reaction to the Pandemic worse. He has access to the most expensive and best medicine in the world that the majority of people do not thus catching it early for him, it is a good chance they can suppress the virus because he can afford that level of treatment and likely lead to a very mild case for him. If he has a mild case, then he will call everyone else who does not "weak losers" and reduce his pandemic response even further. He already takes for granted what he has access to that others do not, and I see this as likely just make that worse while the masses do not have access to the level of care the President and wealthy do. He is of the ignorant mindset that if he has a mild case that everyone else that didn't deserves to die, as they are now " inferior" to him in his mind. He doesn't understand that people do not have control over how their individual immune systems respond. Even when all other factors are the same ( Nutrition, health environment) their immune response can be very different. Trump having an easy time of it would likely lead to him making future decisions that directly lead to many more deaths mistakenly thinking that his personal experience is representative for all.

I honestly don't think it'll matter much, Trump downplayed the pandemic just about as much as one could so what'll realistically changed if Trump has nothing but mild symptoms? Plus, the states are all doing their own different things now anyways that I doubt they care what Trump has to say anymore.

It's a sad reflection on the times that I'm unsure whether this might be a stunt or not.

Trump claims to have covid-19 when he doesn't, and with no major symptoms comes out boasting about how awesome he is and what perfect genes he got, that he was right all the time about how unimportant masks were, that the hydroxychloroquine he took really worked in reducing symptoms, etc.

Hydroxy is standard treatment in many countries where it hasn't been politicized like it has been here. The best data we have shows it works at least somewhat and is extremely non-risky. It really did get unfairly vilified here in the US.

___

Here's a really interesting video going over quite a lot of things from how the states in the US that are doing the best have basically used Sweden's approach (though there's tons of variables that need accounting for) to possibly herb immunity already being a thing is several countries and possibly NYC as well. Also, it shows a clip of Dr. Fauci saying that T-cell cross reactivity with other coronaviruses is not a thing when his own organization, NIH, has said that it has been proven to be true. Health organizations and governments not informing the public of Vitamin D is completely inexcusable at this point.

 

[Shadyside]

*coof* *coof*

 

[Agema]

Hydroxy is standard treatment in many countries where it hasn't been politicized like it has been here. The best data we have shows it works at least somewhat and is extremely non-risky. It really did get unfairly vilified here in the US.

Let me make this as abundantly clear as I possibly can:

There is currently no adequate rationale to defend the use of hydroxychloroquine outside clinical trials.

This isn't because of "politics", it's because the evidence thus far doesn't support it either as treatment or prophylaxis. There are some trials complete, and the overall picture is that it either doesn't work or is at best marginal. Some trials have abandoned it because early data was so discouraging. There are still some ongoing, and we can just wait and see.

Video of "Chris Martenson"

No, this isn't interesting. It's an ex-corporate financial drone blathering some controversial opinions from cherry picked data in the hope it will attract viewers onto his money-spinning website who might be suckered into enrolling for his "premium advice". It's the Web 2.0 version of a huckster guru or snake oil salesman.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Let me make this as abundantly clear as I possibly can:

There is currently no adequate rationale to defend the use of hydroxychloroquine outside clinical trials.

This isn't because of "politics", it's because the evidence thus far doesn't support it either as treatment or prophylaxis. There are some trials complete, and the overall picture is that it either doesn't work or is at best marginal. Some trials have abandoned it because early data was so discouraging. There are still some ongoing, and we can just wait and see.

No, this isn't interesting. It's an ex-corporate financial drone blathering some controversial opinions from cherry picked data in the hope it will attract viewers onto his money-spinning website who might be suckered into enrolling for his "premium advice". It's the Web 2.0 version of a huckster guru or snake oil salesman.

Low-dose hydroxychloroquine therapy and mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: a nationwide observational study of 8075 participants

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been largely used and investigated as therapy for COVID-19 across various settings at a total dose usually ranging from 2…

www.sciencedirect.com

The main reason why hydroxy was removed from treatment guidelines was an article in the Lancet that was completely fraudulent.

Lancet, New England Journal retract Covid-19 studies, including one that raised safety concerns about malaria drugs

Lancet retracts major Covid-19 paper on malaria drug that sparked backlash.

www.statnews.com

---

Except for the whole "Sweden States" section, what did the video claim that isn't true (or jumping to conclusions)?

He even pointed out Dr. Fauci's poor knowledge like the following he got wrong:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk2p2oyXxTc...
"Pre-existing immunity to coronaviruses that are common colds do not cross-react with the Covid-19." - Dr. Fauci (Sept. 23)

Whereas NIH, Fauci's own organization, has this on their website.
https://www.nih.gov/.../immune-cells-common-cold-may...
“We have now proven that, in some people, pre-existing T cell memory against common cold coronaviruses can cross-recognize SARS-CoV-2, down to the exact molecular structures,” [Dr.] Weiskopf says. (Aug. 18)

It's not like Dr. Fauci doesn't have his own political and financial motivations. The video, for the most part, was summing up what many other doctors have already came to the same conclusions about.

 

[Buyetyen]

It's not like Dr. Fauci doesn't have his own political and financial motivations.

Assuming for a minute that this has corrupted his professionalism, in what way, shape of form does that make the profiteering of hydroxy remotely ethical?

 

[Agema]

Hydroxychloroquine

No clinical benefit from use of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 — RECOVERY Trial

Statement from the Chief Investigators of the Randomised Evaluation of COVid-19 thERapY (RECOVERY) Trial on hydroxychloroquine, 5 June 2020

www.recoverytrial.net

WHO discontinues hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir treatment arms for COVID-19

WHO today accepted the recommendation from the Solidarity Trial’s International Steering Committee to discontinue the trial’s hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir arms. The Solidarity Trial was established by WHO to find an effective COVID-19 treatment for hospitalized patients. The...

www.who.int

NIH halts clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine

Study shows treatment does no harm, but provides no benefit

www.nih.gov

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2019014?query=RP

ACP Journals

etc.

Few if any trials were shut down due the fraudulent article in the Lancet. They failed because they failed. There are a few that show benefit, and a load that don't.

Except for the whole "Sweden States" section, what did the video claim that isn't true (or jumping to conclusions)?

It's pompous, self-aggrandising, superficial, and worst of all, selective. In essence, it's a form of dishonesty. Pick the stuff you got right and the stuff someone else got wrong, pick just the right evidence to make the points either way, and there's no-one to argue the opposite case. Fauci is of course not infallible, of course he gets stuff wrong. But if he gets 10 things right for every one he gets wrong, it's hardly fair to pick on the ones and present it as "US policy is not based on science". That's dishonesty.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Assuming for a minute that this has corrupted his professionalism, in what way, shape of form does that make the profiteering of hydroxy remotely ethical?

What profiteering off hydroxy (there's generics for it)?

Whereas something like remdesivir and the vaccines will makes tons of money.

Look what just popped up 5 hours ago...

Gilead Sciences takes back remdesivir distribution as demand drops

Gilead's remdesivir is one of only a few drugs to show benefits in COVID-19. After a somewhat chaotic initial rollout by the U.S. government and a drop in demand since, the company is now taking distribution of the antiviral into its own hands.

www.fiercepharma.com

Gilead has been collecting revenue on the drug since July at the wholesale acquisition cost of $3,120 for a typical five-day treatment course. That's when its U.S. donation of about 1.5 million doses ran out.

At that price, Wolfe Research analyst Tim Anderson projects remdesivir peak sales in both 2020 and 2021 at just below $3 billion. Gilead itself expects to sell about 1 million to 1.5 million courses this year, which roughly equates to $3.5 billion in revenue.

Patients that took remdesivir: 6% had atrial fibrillation, 1% cardiac arrest, 23% had liver dysfunction, 15% had kidney dysfunction.

Hydroxy, outside of an ICU setting, had 0 cardiac events.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

No clinical benefit from use of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 — RECOVERY Trial

Statement from the Chief Investigators of the Randomised Evaluation of COVid-19 thERapY (RECOVERY) Trial on hydroxychloroquine, 5 June 2020

www.recoverytrial.net

WHO discontinues hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir treatment arms for COVID-19

WHO today accepted the recommendation from the Solidarity Trial’s International Steering Committee to discontinue the trial’s hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir arms. The Solidarity Trial was established by WHO to find an effective COVID-19 treatment for hospitalized patients. The...

www.who.int

NIH halts clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine

Study shows treatment does no harm, but provides no benefit

www.nih.gov

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2019014?query=RP

ACP Journals

etc.

Few if any trials were shut down due the fraudulent article in the Lancet. They failed because they failed. There are a few that show benefit, and a load that don't.

It's pompous, self-aggrandising, superficial, and worst of all, selective. In essence, it's a form of dishonesty. Pick the stuff you got right and the stuff someone else got wrong, pick just the right evidence to make the points either way, and there's no-one to argue the opposite case. Fauci is of course not infallible, of course he gets stuff wrong. But if he gets 10 things right for every one he gets wrong, it's hardly fair to pick on the ones and present it as "US policy is not based on science". That's dishonesty.

The WHO temporarily suspended hydroxy investigation because of the fraudulent article.

WHO resumes hydroxychloroquine study for Covid-19, after reviewing safety concerns

The WHO is resuming a clinical trial exploring whether a malaria drug can effectively treat Covid-19, after pausing enrollment in the study to review safety concerns.

www.statnews.com

Both your studies you linked to gave overdoses of hydroxy to the patients, you're only supposed to take between 200-400mg A DAY. The ACPjournals study showed that in the placebo group they had 10 hospitalizations vs 4 in the hydroxy group (both groups were almost exactly even, 423 / 2 basically), which is kinda the whole point of treatment to have people not need to go to the hospital.

Out of 70 hydroxy studies, 56 of them showed benefits (40 were peer reviewed). Of the 14 studies that were negative or neutral, 10 of them were done on ICU patients (which hydroxy doesn't help with). It's not that smart of an idea to give hydroxy to ICU patients and especially not at those doses.

A bit of jumping to conclusions and whatnot, but Africa has had a much lower death rate vs the rest of the world and they hand out hydroxy like candy over there. There's many variables and such so it could be causation from correlation in that regard but plenty of data says otherwise. Several countries and doctors are still prescribing hydroxy for Covid-19 and in some (probably many) places it's literally just part of standard care. Why would that be the case if there was indeed overwhelming data saying hydroxy offers no benefits (or in fact side effects)?

You can listen to someone and gather what makes logical sense and get important information from them even if some parts may be wrong. I watched a Dr. Jay Bhattacharya Youtube video on the Hoover Institution channel, that is very biased, and learned about how the virus might be a lot less deadly than people thought at the time (March). That ended up being far more accurate (with what our best estimates today are for the infection fatality rate) than what the public was being told at the time. The interviewer's questions were very agenda-based and trying to steer the message but I paid attention to what the doctor was saying vs what the interviewer was trying push. Dr. Bhattacharya did one of the very 1st anti-body surveys to gauge how bad the virus actually is.

 

[Buyetyen]

What profiteering off hydroxy (there's generics for it)?

Whereas something like remdesivir and the vaccines will makes tons of money.

I'm not here to defend any particular treatment. I'm asking why people like Trump and the My Pillow asshole who have financial stakes in Hydroxy are not considered to have a conflict of interest for incessantly whoring it?

Hydroxy, outside of an ICU setting, had 0 cardiac events.

Sadly, an ICU setting is kind of what we're concerned with.