Censored truths that Long COVID and ME/CFS groups can no longer keep hidden

[glenn_chan]

Hopefully I can discuss 'controversial' ideas that shouldn't be controversial here.

1. COVID vaccines seem to cause more harm than good in chronic illness patients.
2. Ivermectin is a reasonable treatment for Long COVID.
3. Research money is being wasted on the microclots theory.

COVID vaccines and vaccinations in chronic illness patients​

Let’s start with the most controversial and politicized topic. Now that a good body of evidence exists, it is clear that most studies are showing that vaccination causes more harm than good in chronic illness patients.

I’ve put up a 8 and a half minute video along with its slides.

6 out of 8 relevant studies indicate a net harm. 2 of the studies are higher quality as they are prospective observational studies rather than (retrospective) surveys. Both of the higher-quality studies indicate a net harm*. (*To be fair, one of the studies examined the effect of vaccinations on patients who had already been hurt by them and its results were not surprising.)

One particularly troubling anecdote is Heidi Ferrer, whose Long COVID symptoms exploded after her Moderna vaccination. Her eulogy (https://web.archive.org/web/20220309031441/https://girltomom.com/a-prayer/heidis-eulogy) provides some details on her health post-vaccination. Moderna set off a chain of events that led to her trying Ambien for crippling sleep issues post-vax and a poorly-executed suicide. It is not clear what factors played a role in her death (Ambien, Long COVID, vaccination side effects, her controlling husband, etc.); suicide is a known side effect of Ambien/zolpidem. However, the chain of events likely would not have occurred if she had not gotten vaccinated.

While higher-quality evidence would be ideal, it does not look like we will get it. Yale conducted its Recovery study (NCT04895189) which studied the effect of COVID vaccination on unvaccinated Long COVID sufferers. It would have added another prospective observational study to the body of evidence. However, its release has been pushed back 2 years to 2025. We will have to base decisions on the current body of evidence.

This whole debacle certainly highlights problems with the current ecosystem of “advocacy” groups, clinicians, and researchers. Medical recommendations were given without strong evidence that vaccination was appropriate in chronic illness groups. After patient groups started surveying patients and finding evidence of harm (e.g. ANZMES, ME Association UK, etc.), they largely did not try to correct the record. Instead, they continued to recommend COVID vaccinations anyways.

Full post: Censored truths that Long COVID and ME/CFS groups can no longer keep hidden

Please feel free to disagree and to contribute to a marketplace of ideas.

 

[Pike]

I am appalled that many ME patient support groups were and remain advocates for the covid shots which have done so much harm to large numbers of people. Sadly, these groups by defending the 'safe and effective' big pharma shots they are ignoring the people suffering from vaccine injuries who are still being ignored by the medical establishment which is cap in hand with big pharma whose only concern is to make money by all means necessary regardless of the cost to public health.

 

[TAllen]

NO I won't contribute to a platform that supports white supremacy and anti- vaxx propaganda. I hope Cort shuts you down!

 

[Cort]

I'm afraid you are incorrect about your assessment Glen. To me, at least, those are very controversial statements

1. COVID vaccines seem to cause more harm than good in chronic illness patients.

While Health Rising's survey does indicate that COVID vaccines do hit a subset of patients hard it also shows that another subset of patients actually benefits from them. Plus, most people with ME/CFS/FM get the other benefits from the vaccines; i.e. a reduced risk of hospitalization and deal, a reduced risk of long COVID and at least one study found they're reducing the incidence of autoimmune diseases.

1. Ivermectin is a reasonable treatment for Long COVID.

Multiple studies indicate that ivermectin is not helpful for COVID-19

Efficacy and safety of ivermectin in patients with mild COVID-19 in Japan and Thailand - PubMed

The results show that ivermectin (0.3-0.4 mg/kg), as a treatment for patients with mild COVID-19, is ineffective; however, its safety has been confirmed for participants, including minor participants of 12 years or older (IVERMILCO Study ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05056883.).

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Mortality of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: Effects of treatment options (vitamin D, anticoagulation, isoprinosine, ivermectin) assessed by propensity score matching, retrospective analysis - PubMed

Prophylactic-dose anticoagulation treatment in our study was found to be beneficial in comparison with the full dose. Supplementation with vitamin D did not show any meaningful benefit in terms of lowering the hospital mortality. Neither ivermectin nor, isoprinosine was found to significantly...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Randomized Trial of Metformin, Ivermectin, and Fluvoxamine for Covid-19 - PubMed

None of the three medications that were evaluated prevented the occurrence of hypoxemia, an emergency department visit, hospitalization, or death associated with Covid-19. (Funded by the Parsemus Foundation and others; COVID-OUT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04510194.).

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19 - PubMed

For outpatients, there is currently low- to high-certainty evidence that ivermectin has no beneficial effect for people with COVID-19. Based on the very low-certainty evidence for inpatients, we are still uncertain whether ivermectin prevents death or clinical worsening or increases serious...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I see there is a positive Brazilian study but its results are so at odds with others...

With regard to long COVID, Ivermectin showed no benefit in this study

Outpatient treatment of Covid-19 with metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine and the development of Long Covid over 10-month follow-up - PubMed

There was a 42% relative decrease in the incidence of Long Covid in the metformin group compared to its blinded control in a secondary outcome of this randomized phase 3 trial.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

1. Research money is being wasted on the microclots theory.

???? Completely puzzled by this.

 

[glenn_chan]

Acute COVID is not the same as Long COVID.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36597543/ = COVID-OUT, which was a study on acute COVID. They looked at whether the drugs (when used for acute COVID) affected the development of "Long Covid" afterwards.

If acute COVID and LC were the same thing then you'd figure it would be kind of easy to treat. But it definitely looks like a completely different beast with very different symptoms.

Microclots: Read the middle section of the full post. I think I screwed up the link to the full post, so here it is again: https://forum.sickandabandoned.com/...d-me-cfs-groups-can-no-longer-keep-hidden/295

And then regarding what TAllen wrote:

I won't contribute to a platform that supports white supremacy

Ok. How did we even get to white supremacy?

 

[Pike]

NO I won't contribute to a platform that supports white supremacy and anti- vaxx propaganda. I hope Cort shuts you down!

How is being opposed to the Covid jabs being a white supremacist? I come from an inter racial family and find your call that I am white supremacist very offensive. Censorship is something that any freedom loving person would oppose. Get a grip, your hysteria is not a good look.

 

[Pike]

I'm afraid you are incorrect about your assessment Glen. To me, at least, those are very controversial statements

1. COVID vaccines seem to cause more harm than good in chronic illness patients.

While Health Rising's survey does indicate that COVID vaccines do hit a subset of patients hard it also shows that another subset of patients actually benefits from them. Plus, most people with ME/CFS/FM get the other benefits from the vaccines; i.e. a reduced risk of hospitalization and deal, a reduced risk of long COVID and at least one study found they're reducing the incidence of autoimmune diseases.

1. Ivermectin is a reasonable treatment for Long COVID.

Multiple studies indicate that ivermectin is not helpful for COVID-19

Efficacy and safety of ivermectin in patients with mild COVID-19 in Japan and Thailand - PubMed

The results show that ivermectin (0.3-0.4 mg/kg), as a treatment for patients with mild COVID-19, is ineffective; however, its safety has been confirmed for participants, including minor participants of 12 years or older (IVERMILCO Study ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05056883.).

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Mortality of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: Effects of treatment options (vitamin D, anticoagulation, isoprinosine, ivermectin) assessed by propensity score matching, retrospective analysis - PubMed

Prophylactic-dose anticoagulation treatment in our study was found to be beneficial in comparison with the full dose. Supplementation with vitamin D did not show any meaningful benefit in terms of lowering the hospital mortality. Neither ivermectin nor, isoprinosine was found to significantly...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Randomized Trial of Metformin, Ivermectin, and Fluvoxamine for Covid-19 - PubMed

None of the three medications that were evaluated prevented the occurrence of hypoxemia, an emergency department visit, hospitalization, or death associated with Covid-19. (Funded by the Parsemus Foundation and others; COVID-OUT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04510194.).

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19 - PubMed

For outpatients, there is currently low- to high-certainty evidence that ivermectin has no beneficial effect for people with COVID-19. Based on the very low-certainty evidence for inpatients, we are still uncertain whether ivermectin prevents death or clinical worsening or increases serious...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I see there is a positive Brazilian study but its results are so at odds with others...

With regard to long COVID, Ivermectin showed no benefit in this study

Outpatient treatment of Covid-19 with metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine and the development of Long Covid over 10-month follow-up - PubMed

There was a 42% relative decrease in the incidence of Long Covid in the metformin group compared to its blinded control in a secondary outcome of this randomized phase 3 trial.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

1. Research money is being wasted on the microclots theory.

???? Completely puzzled by this.

Hi Cort,
Professor Paul Marik, who is one of the most highly published intensive care specialists in the world, and his colleagues at the FLCCC who are all world renown experts in their various fields have published numerous papers showing how Ivermectin is a very effective treatment for Covid-19. Never mind the wealth of epidemioolgical evidence from countries where Ivermectin was widely used during the pandemic. utter Pradesh in India with a population of over 200 million, , crushed infection rates and very low mortality from Covid-19 due to widespread distribution of Ivermectin.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/FLCCC-Ivermectin-in-the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-COVID-19.pdf

FLCCC doctors used Ivermectin as practicing doctors to save many lives during the pandemic while most hospitals in the US used ineffective/no treatments which cost the lives of many people.

 

[pamojja]

NO I won't contribute to a platform that supports .. anti- vaxx propaganda

Well, there is another larger platform, where official studies from official agencies were allowed only - most with conflict of interests and many retracted now. Any studies conflicting with them, and not from those official sources, were censored and deleted. The logical consequence, of course, was that I quit my frequent contributions. Only since lifting that censorship, I started to post, but very seldomly again. Confidence broken in such obvious ways can't be restored without an apology. Which never came. Instead the responsible simply resigned.

If discussing of conflicting data isn't allowed with good-will on all sides, then it is indeed time to move on.

I hope Cort shuts you down!

With such bad intents from the outset, discussion forums shoot themselves down all the times. By deterring the most scientific analytical minds. Even about their own erstwhile conclusions.

 

[glenn_chan]

How is being opposed to the Covid jabs being a white supremacist? I come from an inter racial family and find your call that I am white supremacist very offensive. Censorship is something that any freedom loving person would oppose. Get a grip, your hysteria is not a good look.

Perhaps he looked at my profile picture and saw that I am a black and white supremacist.

 

[glenn_chan]

Professor Paul Marik, who is one of the most highly published intensive care specialists in the world, and his colleagues at the FLCCC who are all world renown experts in their various fields have published numerous papers showing how Ivermectin is a very effective treatment for Covid-19.

Has Marik ever prescribed ivermectin to his COVID patients? (He has definitely treated COVID patients at the Sentara teaching hospital.)

 

[Elle Bee]

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. Only peer reviewed studies can claim unbiased and properly conducted research and results. There must then be a consistent pattern of peer-reviewed studies published which arrive at the same, or similar results.

Glen, nothing else is valid when making statements regarding the efficacy of a drug or treatment. If you have a body of evidence which supports your position, please post that. But don't demand that people watch your video or refer back to your very long post.

Thank you.