You must understand that 'Long Covid' is a mechanism being employed to deflect liability. It is pseudo-theory in that it explains everything, anything, and nothing - all at the same time.
A “COVID illness” is due to:
1) Ordinary illnesses being relabeled as COVID due to the invalid PCR test.
2) Being healthy being relabeled as asymptomatic COVID due to the invalid PCR test.
3) Illness from severe air pollution (in China and Italy) being relabeled as COVID due to the invalid PCR test.
4) Fear and stress and isolation making you sick and being relabeled as COVID due to the invalid PCR test.
5) Lack of vitamin D due to reduced sun exposure making you sick and being relabeled as COVID due to the invalid PCR test.
6) Toxic masks and toxic nasal-swab PCR tests making you sick. The 2019+ quadrivalent flu shots likely had toxins added to them in some areas. We’re also being exposed to toxins via food/water/EMF etc. non-stop.
7) “COVID deaths” are due to remdesivir, ventilators, sedatives and the clot shots.
TPTB used 24/7 propaganda to hypnotize the masses into believing a global “pandemic” was real and that hospitals were overwhelmed with “cases” when in fact most hospitals were near-empty in 2020 due to the lockdowns. The only real pandemic is a pandemic of the vaccinated.
It’s imperative that people stop ceding ground to fascists by reifying the Big Lie that "Covid" is a unique disease and that it is responsible for a global pandemic.
This only fortifies the narrative by implying that any extra-ordinary response was ever necessary, that a single one of their “public health” diktats was legitimate.
This has never had anything to do with what is nothing more than a computer-generated genome falsely attributed to a novel pathogen. It is a global conspiracy by the world's transnational ruling class which was planned out and war-gamed at the WEF, the central bankers summit in Jackson Hole, and at Event 201.
It’s all right there for anyone to look up and see for themselves. It is about radically transforming every aspect of society in response to the final crisis of capitalism, which was no long profitable or sustainable, transitioning to the new digital financial system, implementing the technologies of the so-called 4th Industrial Revolution, and exterminating and sterilizing broad swathes of the “useless eaters” and now-surplus labor/population, who in old crises would be sent off to war, which is too risky today with weapons of mass destruction that could blow up the world a hundred times over.
Today they’re accomplishing the same thing through the bio-medical weapons of mass destruction of “covid” measures (isolation, medical malpractice, sedation, ventilation, manufactured unemployment, neglect, austerity, etc.) and poison injections.
The lockdowns, mandatory muzzles, anti-social distancing, and the other measures that did nothing to protect or improve public health were all designed to deliberately break the global economy (and crush competition, especially small businesses) as well as break our minds and the social fabric, in order to “build back better”, according to the diabolical and dystopian visions of the psychopaths waging this class war, which is essentially a billionaires utopia, in which they own the planet like a techno-feudal fiefdom, and oversee the drastically reduced population of digitally branded humanity like cattle in a super-surveilled technocracy.
All talk of so-called "Covid" is a meaningless distraction and quite besides the (existentially urgent) point when you understand that the virus/disease they’re allegedly designed to protect against doesn’t exist in the first place and, additionally, what their real, above-mentioned purpose(s) is.
I will generally disagree with the notion that COVID doesn't exist or long COVID is a cover for other factors. As someone who has done PCR testing for COVID I would generally consider myself to me more knowledgeable on the process than others, and of course I was well aware of the limitations and dangers of using PCR testing as a surveillance measure sans any actual measure of symptoms.
When it comes to long COVID or post-viral sequelae I generally find that a lot of the criticisms work under the notion that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence", in that because we don't have any evidence of long "virus" in the literature that people are inferring that long COVID doesn't exist.
Instead, I would argue that science has failed to actually research into the rate of post-viral sequelae among other viral infections leaving a large emptiness in knowledge which is being used to argue that long COVID or persistent symptoms after any viral infection doesn't actually exist.
Just to be clear in my own mind, you are arguing that we have little or no data regarding post viral symptoms for any virus in the literature; it hasn’t been studied or at least reported. I don’t disagree but not sure what to do with that. It is a simulating thought.
Just out of curiosity since you have performed PCR associated with CoVid how many cycles did you use? Back in the day when I used PCR as scientific “evidence” I was always cautioned on the number cycles in order to not product false positives.
So I think one of the misconceptions about RT-PCR is what the cycle threshold is intended to imply. Generally the idea with RT-PCR is that each gene being amplified had to meet some threshold with the assumption that higher initial viral load would meet that threshold quicker. And so the cycle count was more of a inferential number to indicate that someone had high viral load and was therefore infected.
Now, with that being said the kit we used placed the Ct Cutoff at 40 cycles which would infer anything above that would be a viral load so low it wouldn't be considered infected/infectious although there's no way of relating infectivity from a PCR test.
So when one gets to the upper 30s and closer to that cutoff it usually makes one skeptical as to the actual positivity since even very tiny levels of sample can return positive. So it's not so much the fact that they may be amplifying it too much, but paired with the fact that even very small samples can turn up positive I tended to be skeptical of those values in the 30s. Sometimes you'll also notice that maybe only one gene amplified at met the cutoff while the other two didn't (our kit used 3 genes), so sometimes you'll have to repeat one or two times and then you may get at least two genes to amplify. Great, but then is that really a positive or would that be considered "forcing" a positive, sort of like p-hacking in that scenario.
Yes, so a while back I wrote a post on long COVID and looked into the literature to see any previous information on it.
What I found was that there were several reported incidences of chronic fatigue and other maladies after infections from things such as Adenoviruses or Epstein-Barr viruses, labeled as "post-viral syndrome". However, because this occurred mostly in women a lot of these symptoms were blamed on hysteria rather than having anything to do with a previous viral infection.
I included an editorial from the 1980s where one doctor even suggested that the presentation could be half post-viral sequelae and half hysteria, and so my belief is that there was a mindset in medicine that downplayed the actual probability of post-viral sequelae and so hardly any studies were conducted to look into it leaving a blind spot. Now we are dealing with this issue of what may appear to be unique to COVID when in reality this may be a feature of many viruses.
Brian Mowrey included a video of Dr. Patterson and Dr. Yoh discussing long COVID treatments and you can see people in the comments discussing how they had some infection at one point and just never felt the same afterwards. It's anecdotal, but it at least adds some value to the argument that this isn't a unique phenomenon happening just in COVID.
"That means that, in those who were provided..." seems to have an extra "no."
It's good at least that Pax doesn't turn out to drive higher post-acute diagnoses due to hypothetical paradoxical effects on virus-host homeostasis, such as rebounds. Definitely not impressive as far as protecting against LC, given that neuro issues are barely moved and the issues with big moves basically just sound like severe cases (which we already know Pax is good at mitigating). At the same time, this isn't a surprising outcome given that LC doesn't seem as common after Omi (suggested here in a survey-based study https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.10.12.22280990v2)
I checked back and I don't think so, the first no refers to there being no long-COVID symptoms while the second refers to those who were given no treatments so it's referring to two separate groups. Honestly I see my language can make it confusing but I really wasn't sure how to name everything in here since PASC is a mouthful and long COVID may not even be a proper term for the post-acute phase.
The data doesn't have much other to serve as a proper comparison so the evidence is more a game of technicalities than anything of clinical significance.
Given the time period the rates of the long COVID here do appear rather high. I do wonder if this is due to age and other comorbidities altering the end results. For the acute phase PAXLOVID may show some good effect sizes in the older treatment groups whereas these same groups may be more inclined to suffer from long COVID symptoms due to reduced overall health.
I haven't looked into the data too much to see if there is an age-related association but that certainly would add another variable to the results here.
Hm... As I read it, it should either say that the Pax group had a higher percentage of no LC or a lower percentage of LC, instead it seems to say that the Pax group had lower no LC (ie higher LC).
All the Xie / Al-ALy LC papers imply crazy, rampant LC rates, which seems to be the point of their having flooded the zone all year. So yeah likely to do with comorbidities being high in the VA data set as well as hidden biases. They are always very cagey with which symptoms they use to show that their analysis wasn't flagged by the negative controls.
I haven't paid attention to much of their work so I wouldn't notice it, but from this paper alone it was strange why things weren't clearly labeled. Their supplementary table breaks down a category of SARS-COV2 infection and reinfection yet they never state the rate of reinfection within either group, so it's hard to know what numbers are being referenced here.
Technically this one wasn't peer reviewed, but hey I'm a peer right? We're all peers so we can review it and based on a review the study results just seem so minor that I'm not sure why this is being reported as a phenomenal study.
Interesting! As a reference I would argue that this is similar to comparing apples to oranges, but the overall positive rate of ivermectin would at least add credence to its use. This tends to be one of those things where it would be good to pick apart the reviews, and it's very helpful to have the top reviews as a reference there so people can understand the tone or direction of some of those reviews.
OK, I was going to comment prior to the edit but yes molnupiravir is the mutagen. I have a series on monlupiravir if you're interested, although some of the data may be outdated and some of it was written during my early months of writing so it may not be put together well (as if to say what I write now is put together well!).
PAXLOVID is a wonky drug as it's a large structure, but that's not out of the ordinary for protease inhibitors since their mechanism of action is to interact with different regions of the enzyme. The side effects haven't been fully elucidated, although one may argue that it could interact with various proteins and enzymes. Generally the effects would be considered acute, and most side effects stem from the cytochrome P450 inhibitor ritonavir since it may lead to buildup of compounds that require the specific isozyme to be metabolized.
You must understand that 'Long Covid' is a mechanism being employed to deflect liability. It is pseudo-theory in that it explains everything, anything, and nothing - all at the same time.
A “COVID illness” is due to:
1) Ordinary illnesses being relabeled as COVID due to the invalid PCR test.
2) Being healthy being relabeled as asymptomatic COVID due to the invalid PCR test.
3) Illness from severe air pollution (in China and Italy) being relabeled as COVID due to the invalid PCR test.
4) Fear and stress and isolation making you sick and being relabeled as COVID due to the invalid PCR test.
5) Lack of vitamin D due to reduced sun exposure making you sick and being relabeled as COVID due to the invalid PCR test.
6) Toxic masks and toxic nasal-swab PCR tests making you sick. The 2019+ quadrivalent flu shots likely had toxins added to them in some areas. We’re also being exposed to toxins via food/water/EMF etc. non-stop.
7) “COVID deaths” are due to remdesivir, ventilators, sedatives and the clot shots.
TPTB used 24/7 propaganda to hypnotize the masses into believing a global “pandemic” was real and that hospitals were overwhelmed with “cases” when in fact most hospitals were near-empty in 2020 due to the lockdowns. The only real pandemic is a pandemic of the vaccinated.
It’s imperative that people stop ceding ground to fascists by reifying the Big Lie that "Covid" is a unique disease and that it is responsible for a global pandemic.
This only fortifies the narrative by implying that any extra-ordinary response was ever necessary, that a single one of their “public health” diktats was legitimate.
This has never had anything to do with what is nothing more than a computer-generated genome falsely attributed to a novel pathogen. It is a global conspiracy by the world's transnational ruling class which was planned out and war-gamed at the WEF, the central bankers summit in Jackson Hole, and at Event 201.
It’s all right there for anyone to look up and see for themselves. It is about radically transforming every aspect of society in response to the final crisis of capitalism, which was no long profitable or sustainable, transitioning to the new digital financial system, implementing the technologies of the so-called 4th Industrial Revolution, and exterminating and sterilizing broad swathes of the “useless eaters” and now-surplus labor/population, who in old crises would be sent off to war, which is too risky today with weapons of mass destruction that could blow up the world a hundred times over.
Today they’re accomplishing the same thing through the bio-medical weapons of mass destruction of “covid” measures (isolation, medical malpractice, sedation, ventilation, manufactured unemployment, neglect, austerity, etc.) and poison injections.
The lockdowns, mandatory muzzles, anti-social distancing, and the other measures that did nothing to protect or improve public health were all designed to deliberately break the global economy (and crush competition, especially small businesses) as well as break our minds and the social fabric, in order to “build back better”, according to the diabolical and dystopian visions of the psychopaths waging this class war, which is essentially a billionaires utopia, in which they own the planet like a techno-feudal fiefdom, and oversee the drastically reduced population of digitally branded humanity like cattle in a super-surveilled technocracy.
All talk of so-called "Covid" is a meaningless distraction and quite besides the (existentially urgent) point when you understand that the virus/disease they’re allegedly designed to protect against doesn’t exist in the first place and, additionally, what their real, above-mentioned purpose(s) is.
I will generally disagree with the notion that COVID doesn't exist or long COVID is a cover for other factors. As someone who has done PCR testing for COVID I would generally consider myself to me more knowledgeable on the process than others, and of course I was well aware of the limitations and dangers of using PCR testing as a surveillance measure sans any actual measure of symptoms.
When it comes to long COVID or post-viral sequelae I generally find that a lot of the criticisms work under the notion that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence", in that because we don't have any evidence of long "virus" in the literature that people are inferring that long COVID doesn't exist.
Instead, I would argue that science has failed to actually research into the rate of post-viral sequelae among other viral infections leaving a large emptiness in knowledge which is being used to argue that long COVID or persistent symptoms after any viral infection doesn't actually exist.
Just to be clear in my own mind, you are arguing that we have little or no data regarding post viral symptoms for any virus in the literature; it hasn’t been studied or at least reported. I don’t disagree but not sure what to do with that. It is a simulating thought.
Just out of curiosity since you have performed PCR associated with CoVid how many cycles did you use? Back in the day when I used PCR as scientific “evidence” I was always cautioned on the number cycles in order to not product false positives.
So I think one of the misconceptions about RT-PCR is what the cycle threshold is intended to imply. Generally the idea with RT-PCR is that each gene being amplified had to meet some threshold with the assumption that higher initial viral load would meet that threshold quicker. And so the cycle count was more of a inferential number to indicate that someone had high viral load and was therefore infected.
Now, with that being said the kit we used placed the Ct Cutoff at 40 cycles which would infer anything above that would be a viral load so low it wouldn't be considered infected/infectious although there's no way of relating infectivity from a PCR test.
So when one gets to the upper 30s and closer to that cutoff it usually makes one skeptical as to the actual positivity since even very tiny levels of sample can return positive. So it's not so much the fact that they may be amplifying it too much, but paired with the fact that even very small samples can turn up positive I tended to be skeptical of those values in the 30s. Sometimes you'll also notice that maybe only one gene amplified at met the cutoff while the other two didn't (our kit used 3 genes), so sometimes you'll have to repeat one or two times and then you may get at least two genes to amplify. Great, but then is that really a positive or would that be considered "forcing" a positive, sort of like p-hacking in that scenario.
Thanks, this my understanding.
Yes, so a while back I wrote a post on long COVID and looked into the literature to see any previous information on it.
What I found was that there were several reported incidences of chronic fatigue and other maladies after infections from things such as Adenoviruses or Epstein-Barr viruses, labeled as "post-viral syndrome". However, because this occurred mostly in women a lot of these symptoms were blamed on hysteria rather than having anything to do with a previous viral infection.
I included an editorial from the 1980s where one doctor even suggested that the presentation could be half post-viral sequelae and half hysteria, and so my belief is that there was a mindset in medicine that downplayed the actual probability of post-viral sequelae and so hardly any studies were conducted to look into it leaving a blind spot. Now we are dealing with this issue of what may appear to be unique to COVID when in reality this may be a feature of many viruses.
Brian Mowrey included a video of Dr. Patterson and Dr. Yoh discussing long COVID treatments and you can see people in the comments discussing how they had some infection at one point and just never felt the same afterwards. It's anecdotal, but it at least adds some value to the argument that this isn't a unique phenomenon happening just in COVID.
https://moderndiscontent.substack.com/i/50042845/post-viral-syndrome
What many still don't quite grasp, and I include many of the 'Sceptics', is that Covid-19 was a plan with specific and multiple policy objectives.
Do you belive that there was a viral pandemic in the US in Spring 2020? If so what is your evidence for this?
"That means that, in those who were provided..." seems to have an extra "no."
It's good at least that Pax doesn't turn out to drive higher post-acute diagnoses due to hypothetical paradoxical effects on virus-host homeostasis, such as rebounds. Definitely not impressive as far as protecting against LC, given that neuro issues are barely moved and the issues with big moves basically just sound like severe cases (which we already know Pax is good at mitigating). At the same time, this isn't a surprising outcome given that LC doesn't seem as common after Omi (suggested here in a survey-based study https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.10.12.22280990v2)
I checked back and I don't think so, the first no refers to there being no long-COVID symptoms while the second refers to those who were given no treatments so it's referring to two separate groups. Honestly I see my language can make it confusing but I really wasn't sure how to name everything in here since PASC is a mouthful and long COVID may not even be a proper term for the post-acute phase.
The data doesn't have much other to serve as a proper comparison so the evidence is more a game of technicalities than anything of clinical significance.
Given the time period the rates of the long COVID here do appear rather high. I do wonder if this is due to age and other comorbidities altering the end results. For the acute phase PAXLOVID may show some good effect sizes in the older treatment groups whereas these same groups may be more inclined to suffer from long COVID symptoms due to reduced overall health.
I haven't looked into the data too much to see if there is an age-related association but that certainly would add another variable to the results here.
Hm... As I read it, it should either say that the Pax group had a higher percentage of no LC or a lower percentage of LC, instead it seems to say that the Pax group had lower no LC (ie higher LC).
All the Xie / Al-ALy LC papers imply crazy, rampant LC rates, which seems to be the point of their having flooded the zone all year. So yeah likely to do with comorbidities being high in the VA data set as well as hidden biases. They are always very cagey with which symptoms they use to show that their analysis wasn't flagged by the negative controls.
I haven't paid attention to much of their work so I wouldn't notice it, but from this paper alone it was strange why things weren't clearly labeled. Their supplementary table breaks down a category of SARS-COV2 infection and reinfection yet they never state the rate of reinfection within either group, so it's hard to know what numbers are being referenced here.
Wait, no I see it now and I shall correct it!
Thanks for the critical eye in this. I am mildly surprised at the shoddiness of the paper. Peer reviewed, right? By people who can’t read or think?
Technically this one wasn't peer reviewed, but hey I'm a peer right? We're all peers so we can review it and based on a review the study results just seem so minor that I'm not sure why this is being reported as a phenomenal study.
Reviews of Paxlovid can also be found here:
https://leemuller.substack.com/p/people-rate-ivermectin-higher-than
Interesting! As a reference I would argue that this is similar to comparing apples to oranges, but the overall positive rate of ivermectin would at least add credence to its use. This tends to be one of those things where it would be good to pick apart the reviews, and it's very helpful to have the top reviews as a reference there so people can understand the tone or direction of some of those reviews.
Thanks. I have read all, just needed to put the concepts in simple terms for myself.
Correction, molnupiravir is a mutagen. I don't know about pax lo vid. But with any drug use during EUA, is full drug side effects being informed?
OK, I was going to comment prior to the edit but yes molnupiravir is the mutagen. I have a series on monlupiravir if you're interested, although some of the data may be outdated and some of it was written during my early months of writing so it may not be put together well (as if to say what I write now is put together well!).
https://moderndiscontent.substack.com/p/the-molnupiravir-anthology-series
PAXLOVID is a wonky drug as it's a large structure, but that's not out of the ordinary for protease inhibitors since their mechanism of action is to interact with different regions of the enzyme. The side effects haven't been fully elucidated, although one may argue that it could interact with various proteins and enzymes. Generally the effects would be considered acute, and most side effects stem from the cytochrome P450 inhibitor ritonavir since it may lead to buildup of compounds that require the specific isozyme to be metabolized.