T. Belman. I trust Bennett. He is forcing everyone to follow the requirements which he calls “citizen duties”. Like serving in the military. Yet I continue to post articles which put such draconian measures into question. I railed against Biden for sending the gestapo door to door recommending vaccination whereas I accept Bennett calling it a requirement not a recommendation. At least Bennett isn’t calling for lockdowns.
Even in democracies, the freedom of citizens is circumscribed if the common good requires it.
PM declares that government decisions are not mere advice, says authorities formulating plan for smooth opening of school year
By TOI STAFF 19 July 2021, 1:16 pm
Prime Minister Naftali Bennett warned on Monday that authorities would not tolerate a lack of adherence to new virus restrictions, speaking ahead of a planned effort to significantly increase enforcement of regulations meant to curb the spread of infections.
“I want to say here clearly: Government decisions are not recommendations; they are binding. Whoever flouts them will pay,” the premier said according to a statement from the Prime Minister’s Office.
Israel has moved to reimpose a number of measures, most significantly a mandate requiring facemasks indoors and the reintroduction of a system restricting attendance at large events to only those who have been vaccinated against or recovered from COVID-19, or who can present a recent negative test. Authorities are said to also be mulling more moves, with case numbers continuing to rise.
“Wearing a mask indoors is a requirement, not a recommendation. From Wednesday, only those who have been vaccinated or have recovered or have a negative test will be able to attend [mass] events — this is a requirement, not a recommendation. Keeping quarantine is a requirement, not a recommendation,” Bennett said. “These are a citizen’s duties.”
Israel is expected to see a major increase in enforcement this week, as local municipality inspectors work alongside police to fine people found without face coverings in indoor locations.
Those found without one can be fined NIS 500 (approximately $150). Additionally, owners of event halls where the rules are violated will be subject to NIS 5,000 ($1,500) fines.
The warning came a day after Bennett said that technological means would be used to check on the location of those in quarantine, asking the attorney general and public security minister to examine the legal implications of such a move.
It was also agreed by officials on Sunday that criminal indictments would be filed against those found to knowingly violate quarantine regulations, and that those who receive fines would have less time in which to pay it than in the past.
Israel has seen coronavirus cases rise sharply over the last month, after nearly eradicating the disease and removing nearly all restrictions in May and June.
The latest data from the Health Ministry on Monday showed that there were 829 new coronavirus cases diagnosed on Sunday.
People shop at the Mahane Yehuda market in Jerusalem on July 15, 2021 (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)<
>
<
>
There were 66 patients in serious condition as the total number of cases continued to creep upward. Of the 49,373 tests performed Sunday, 1.71 percent came back positive. There are 6,952 active virus cases in the country, Health Ministry data showed.
Three deaths on Sunday took the reported death toll in Israel since the pandemic began to 6,450.
Bennett said Monday that the government was formulating a plan to ensure the academic year can open as planned on September 1, saying that any possible changes would be announced in advance to allow people time to prepare.
“Our main goal is to open the school year smoothly. We went through a year where education was the first thing to get hurt, and we saw millions of students paying the price and zoning out in front of Zoom at home,” Bennett said. “The actions we are taking now are aimed at helping us open the school year in an organized way.”
The prime minister also warned that there were still one million people in the country who are eligible to get vaccinated but have not done so.<
>
<
>
<
>
“Those who do not get vaccinated endanger themselves, endanger their family, endanger their friends, endanger the livelihoods of those around them and endanger the opening of the school year,” Bennett said.
An Israeli girl receives a dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine during a campaign by the Tel Aviv-Yafo Municipality to encourage the vaccination of teenagers, on July 5, 2021, in Tel Aviv (JACK GUEZ / AFP)<
>
<
>
The premier also sent greetings to Israel’s Muslim and Druze communities on the occasion of the upcoming Eid al-Adha celebration.
“Along with the joy of the holiday, I also ask for caution — I call on all the celebrants who have not yet gone to get vaccinated, to do it today, and also put on masks,” Bennett said.
(4 of 4)
Azythromycin and Doxycycline are each among the top choices for the anti-inflammatory component of the drug cocktail and they will each act as a antibiotic, simultaneously. Some will be seen to be unable to take the Doxcycycline. The anticoagulant employed will generally be aspirin. If the candidate is a higher risk, they may be proscribe Lovenox or a oral anti-coagulant drug.
With the passage of time, there have been additional therapies that assist in survival, and in the past 6 weeks, it has been found that the anti-gout treatment of Colchicine, by itself resulted in a reduction in death by 50% when used against the Covid disease. Hence, this has recently been included in the treatment of these at-risk patients in accordance with Good Medical Practices.
In addition to the drugs treating the actual Covid disease, an asthma inhaler with Budesonide may be used to help with difficulty breathing. If the Budesonide does not provide enough support, Prednisone may be used instead. In addition to these treatments, these at-risk patients should pursue the same dietary and vitamins suggested in those who were sent home for the 10-14 days without medical support, discussed above.
Regardless of treatments employed, the patients should maintain good contact with their physician and advise them of any concerns or complications. Should things digress, there significant and aggressive treatments that can be pursued in a hospital setting as well to secure a successful outcome of this disease. These treatments are very successful when pursued – there is one physician using these protocols that had 4300 patients and only one required hospitalization – this was a very good record, but it gives you the idea of what might be achieved with early treatments.
All of this information may be found on the AAPSonline.com site, as well as many other resources. I hope this will help explain the many potential benefits available to people with early treatments. Again, always seek medical advice from your physician as he will be the best judge of your medical needs, just make sure he does do early treatments. Let me know if something is unclear.
/4
(3 of 4)
The Good Medical Practice of early treatment is exceedingly important to achieve a successful outcome from treating the Covid disease. This is due to the viral amplification that takes place over the first several days, usually up to a week or more. During this stage the infected individual will go from having no disease symptoms to increasingly experience the result of the body’s sensing of the presence of the virus in the body. As the body detects the viral infected cells, it stimulates the body’s immune system to send out a first and second line of defense – as in all great lines of defense these are each a separate line of attack upon the invading virus.
We can discuss the scientific cellular responses, if any are interested, but for the moment, let us just accept the result of these immune responses is an extremely aggressive inflammatory response, where many inflammatory agents are released to destroy the cells infected by the virus. So, the treatment for this phase of the infection is the use of an antiviral compound and anti-inflammatory compound. An antibiotic is used to prevent infections taking advantage of the immune system’s preoccupation with the viral infected cells. The last component is an anticoagulant that will address the clotting issues associated with the Covid disease.
Regarding the antiviral component of the drug cocktail, there are many choices, and the specific agent chosen will distinguish the level of success gained by their use. The top two choices of anti-virals include the hydroxychloroquine(HCQ) and ivermectin(IVM). This being stated there are many antiviral drugs to be chosen by clinicians throughout the world. In South Africa, the political uproar over both HCQ & IVM is so significant that the doctor treating the disease there chose some third antiviral and achieved great success in spite of its not being either of these two top choices.
The first paper on the significant findings of the use of HCQ with Covid disease was first published by Dr. Zalenko 9 days after the world shut down. It is regrettable that its known use was purposefully blocked, as it is shown to generate an 85% drop in hospitalizations, note this means the use of HCQ in a viral treatment cocktail will prevent 85% of cases ever needing any serious healthcare treatment and therefor will largely remain unimpaired by the Covid disease. IVM has a similar, if not slightly improved result to that of HCQ, as it has shown between 90-94% reduction in hospitalizations when included in the drug cocktail. Again these results are only made possible should the treatment begin in the early stages of the disease, ie first 5 days from symptoms.
/3
(2 of 4)
In spite of this, the medical community in the US has, due to the FDA and CDC guidance, split into two groups. One group treats Covid disease promptly, contrary to CDC guidance and the other adheres to the guidance and asks the patient to isolate for two weeks. Should your doctor suggest that they don’t treat the Covid disease, you can ask for a referral or just go to http://www.AAPSonline.org where they list the physicians who treat Covid disease early.
This is a very good site and has many resources that are useful towards the goal of early treatment of the Covid disease – everything we are discussing here can be found on this site. It may come as a surprise to hear that should anyone not be among the high risk categories, which should include the elderly and those who have diseases associated with poor outcomes(diabetes, cancer, heart disease, etc.), it is Good Medical Practice to send people home without treatment for the 10 days as long as they are younger than 50yrs old, as their immune system should be capable of handling the disease.
They should check in via telemedicine for checkups in that time to make sure things are not deescalating, but it is well established for this age range, there is little risk. Additionally, they should take supplements of Vitamin D, Vitamin C, quercitin and Zn. Also the dietary support that I wrote about a couple of days ago will support the immune system and improve the immune systems ability for the long fight towards recovery. Here is the link to the essay on dietary support of the immune system(in which I should have included Zn as well):
https://www.israpundit.org/mrna-vaccines-will-kill-most-people-through-heart-failure-62-of-vaccinated-people-already-show-microscopic-blood-clots/#comment-63356000239451
For those who are older than 50 or have health problems, they should receive an initial infusion of monoclonal antibodies – these are a very effective treatment that no one ever talks about that were specifically developed for the Covid treatment. If the doctor does not offer this treatment, ask for it, it is important. Following this, the patient will be provided a drug coctail, but let us first discuss the goal and reasons fo the importance of early treatment.
The overall goal of the Covid treatment should always be an early treatment. It is this reason why waiting two weeks after testing without treatment is so dangerous. Indeed, in India they have pursued the use of prophylaxis with great success since the early days of the epidemic, but it should be noted the success is based upon publicly related death data that has been called into question in both India and the US in recent days. In any event, there is no logical reason why the prophylaxis should not be seen as being useful in the treatment of the disease due to the importance of early treatment.
/2
(1 of 4)
@Adam
So, treatments.
There has been a lot of talk about the vaccine, the vaccine is effective, or is safe or it’s neither, but there is invariably never any discussion about treatment – and I mean NEVER. There have been breakthrough after breakthrough on the Covid treatment front which is banned by the Media and never even mentioned by the govt healthcare officials. Worse than this, the govts have completely abandoned any funding towards the treatments. It has been over 18month and no treatments have been funded. To complicate this the journal literature which generally gives the studies a sense of validity has blocked or delayed by six months or more the publication of the treatments that have undergone testing based on private funding. It is scandalous. But let us consider the possible out patient treatments.
The Covid disease has three basic arms of attack upon the patient which must be addressed to prevent serious disease and/or death. These are the initial viral replication of the virus, the excessive inflammatory response by the body’s immune system, and the dreaded clotting disorders, which, should the initial two elements of attack not succeed, this latter set of disorders will result in significant limitation upon the patients survival.
The treatment is focused upon each of these arms of attack, not unlike countering a four prong military assault upon some great battlefield. Before going further, it should be noted that we should each seek the input of our physicians regarding these medications, and this is just a useful, I hope, description of some of the currently employed treatments used to defeat the harms of the Covid disease.
The multi-focal approach towards treatments of Covid disease, as in all viral diseases, will require multiple drugs, usually 3-4 drugs which might be tweaked based upon the patient’s associated disease and age. Viral diseases are unlike bacterial diseases were the treatment might be achieve more specifically with a single drug choice.
This is seen, for example in the HIV drug cocktail that most will have read of in the press over the years, but it is also true of all viral treatments. The individual drug choices are each chosen from a classification of drugs, ie antivirals, anti-inflammatories, antibiotics and anti-coagualants(anti-clotting). In medicine there is an accepted principle called Good Medical Practice. You will commonly hear this term thrown about by television news doctors, but it is a very important topic.
It references the intervention by the medical official when a disease is present which carries a potential for serious disease or death. You would never send someone home for two weeks, for instance, when you observed they were developing pneumonia, it would be an act of malfeasance that could have seriouos consequences. With this in mind, it is the goal of Good Medical Practice to treat any serious disease early, before the serious disease becomes too serious.
/1
@Edgar
Dr. Bengele is Dr. Mengele with a “B” as in “Bibi”.
I know, i know Bibi can do no wrong.
@Bear
Yes, Bear, I am well aware you are not bashful, and I appreciate your response as always. It is good to have an independent mind, and too much of this topic seems too similar to a conversation of some political debate where each side is adopting a standard of righteous certainty when no such thing might be claimed at present. So, I do appreciate your position on the matter.
@ Peloni, Correction to my last comment.
I do NOT read many peoples comments.
@Peloni I will address you directly if I am remarking on your comments, I am not bashful.
On this topic I am not much interested in debate and do read many people’s comments because I do my own research (and have my own views). I have found way too many people are trying to find a way to find facts that fit their view and have gotten away from objectivity. In other words their bias is so strong why would I care what they think or right as I am not crusading on my viewpoint nor care if anyone else agrees with it.
@ READER Who’s Dr. Bengate??????
If Netanyahu s doing as your insinuate, with your verkakte reports, then IT’S A GOOD THING FOR ISRAEL. Because Bennett s incapable of dealing with international re
sponsibilities except as a recipient of ORDERS; and not as an equal head of govt.
He constantly criticized Netanyhu’s handling o f the crisis and tched to show how good he’d be..Now h has the chance and failing minsereably.
You have to check what they mean by “cases”.
It used to be that a case of an illness was = a patient with the symptoms of that illness.
With COVID, for the 1st time in history, to the best of my knowledge,
a case of COVID is = someone who tests positive for the virus whether s/he has any symptoms or not (using an extremely unreliable PCR test which wasn’t designed for detecting pathogens in the 1st place).
I suspect that the level of testing has increased significantly – in Israel they are planning to start offering home tests soon.
So the more you test, the more “cases” you’ll get.
Wait ’til the middle of September when all the flu cases will start again being diagnosed as COVID.
Funny, how no one worries about the effects of the flu which has mortality comparable to that of COVID, and cancer which kills more people each year than COVID, etc., etc.
I just wish to fall asleep and wake up when it’s over (if it is ever going to be over) at the mere thought of it.
Netanyahu is negotiating behind Bennet’s back with Pfizer and Moderna for the supplies for the 3rd jab.
Netanyahu wants to be remembered as a “savior of Israel” and, of course, wants to show how little Bennett cares for the health of the nation in contrast to himself, the (allegedly former) prime minister.
He should be careful so he doesn’t end up being remembered as Dr. Bengele instead.
@Bear
Sorry Bear, your comments did seem to closely respond to my own, so forgive me if you found my response too sharply stated.
@Peloni sorry you took my comment personally, I have not read your comments as they are too long and I do not have time. Have a good day.
@Bear
Bear, it is not hysteria, its a very serious matter. And my arguments are not over generalizations, I have been quite specific in my statements, but prove me wrong. I would love to be incorrect. Where are the treatments? Did you read what you wrote? Nose sprays aren’t treatments, with all due respect, they aren’t – and the nose spray article was dated the same day as the Phizer authorization in Israel went thru, if I am not mistaken. And then you noted a vague reference to some other drugs that They have not yet undergone clinical trials? What are they waiting for? Nearly 200 Million people have had the disease and over 4 million people are dead – it seems a little past the time to be in the “early stages” of testing, its been 18months.
There have been literally dozens of drugs currently available since the outbreak which have been used around the world, counter to official gov’t guidance, which means the doctors could lose their ability to practice just for offering a sick guy some medications – and its not hypothetical, they did it. Unless you are telling me that I am wrong. Serious question, when someone in Israel tests positive what drugs are they issued and how long ago did that change? I would be encouraged to hear it has changed. Are they prescribing ivermectin in Israel for a positive test, what about HCQ? Colchicine?
I will be writing something more fully tomorrow on treatments, but we are 18months into this world hysteria crisis where we waited for 7-9months to create a vaccine, rushed the drug trials and in that time no drugs were officially authorized for treatment. Now, in Israel, Phizer is now approved, so it would not surprise me to see other treatments suddenly become approved, but history is what it is, the treatments were not pursued by gov’ts. They weren’t authorized either. They just weren’t. Which is what I said, not that there weren’t treatments, there always were treatments, they just haven’t been utilized.
Maybe you missed the nuance, between what you are stating and what I have stated, but this nuance resulted in many needless deaths. The death rate would have been a fraction of what was experienced with just a little funding, or just the use of a couple of treatments. Steve Kirsh has tried to get antiviral drugs approved for treatment and he was specifically told they would fund him if he used them as a late treatment. Everyone knows antivirals only work early in treatment. There is a lot to discuss, so I’ll pursue it further, but these treatments you are mentioning are quite irrelevant to my arguments. It is good that they are soon, some day going to be available, though. By the way, did the gov’t fund the research? Another serious question, if you know. And if they did, when did they authorize the funding, may around the time that Phizer was authorized? Now that last one was just rhetorical to make a point.
On more point, it isn’t really fair to state that treatments were blocked everywhere, because they weren’t. As I have noted, India has pursued treatment with some force since the beginning. In addition, I believe Russia, Pakistan, Greece and Italy all have pursued treatments over the past year. Begs the question, why them, and not the others?
Israeli scientists are also in the early stages of testing 18 drugs (for repurposing) that stopped the Covid-19 virus successfully in the lab but have not yet undergone clinical trials.
So besides for vaccines which greatly reduced deaths and sickness, there are now drugs available to treat Covid-19. So in-spite some of the dramatic generalizations and hysteria we read about from some everything is not doom and gloom.
As Plato once noted, we should always define terms so there is no confusion about what is meant when a given term is used. Vaccinated is meant to imply that the individual has had their full 2 doses of either Phizer or Moderna. Hence, if an individual should receive a single dose and develop symptoms, they will be precluded from taking the second shot and will be counted as unvaccinated, even though they have received their first vaccine shot. It seems to me an improper use of the word ‘unvaccinated’, when an inoculation has been injected, but this is how the Censorship Lords have defined the term and is now being used, so best we all know the reality that the term unvaccinated is really more of a imprecise term, since it includes those who have had no injections and those who have had one(of Phizer and Moderna). Just FYI
(3 of 3)
Not every topic or drug can pursue a RCT for a number of reasons. Among these are:
– RCTs require large groups of available subjects to choose the for the groups, ie there needs to be enough potential subjects to choose two or more large symmetrical groups.
– There must be a specific measurable parameter such as lab tests to distinguish outcomes between the differing groups
– RCTs take a lot of time to develop, plan and conduct, so these would not be useful in situations where an answer is immediately needed.
The limitations of the RCT can be seen when one or more of the subjects indulge in an outside source of spoilage, such as an over the counter treatment, for example. Also, should anyone quit the study for some reason, the imbalance in the groups can introduce a distinction between the groups that can not be accounted for in the data analysis. Yet even with these limitations being stated, the RCT provides the best source of good clean data and can not be compared to case studies or other marginally structured studies.
Having stated this, and here is the real problem with the RCT – namely, that one study with excellent data is still just one study, and the excellent data may be less than significantly different from the general population, meaning it tells you nothing of use. The strength of the findings should be used to add to the preponderance of research already established, it can not be used to replace a preponderance of data, nor can it be used in place of the establishment of a preponderance of data, as many in the media and public at large may suspect them to be capable of doing. Any drug trial could be poorly managed or badly interpreted. Good data is better than bad data, every day of the week, but a single set of data can only tell you the results of this single study, regardless of the strength of the data.
Of course, if you have only one study, you can not make it into more even if it is needed, but let me point something out. The cost of conducting a RCT indicates that there are easily hundreds, or more, of other easy, cheap trials that might not be funded as a result – each one of these other trials would have less quality data, but there would be hundreds of inflections on a single topic with each study confirming previous findings while also testing new hypotheses. The need to confirm everything by RCT, ultimately reduces the number of studies performed and thus each data set becomes more acutely important. (Recall the analogy of looking at a single hair on the back of a dog, as opposed to having many hundreds of hairs, which would better inform you that you are looking at a dog?) Also any errors collected in fewer studies will become more amplified by fewer redundant inquiries being performed. So, RCTs are very useful sources of good data, but their expense and rigid controls prevent them from being applied in an emergency to answer critical questions from multiple angles of inquiry.
Hope this tells you something more than you were aware about the RCTs, again if you have any confusion or questions, let me know. I’ll have the discussion on treatments for you sometime tomorrow.
/3
(2 of 3)
The RCT may be performed as unblind, single-blind or double-blind. The unblind RCT has subjects fully knowledgeable of what group they are assigned, there are situations where this can not be avoided. The single-blind RCT has the clinicians aware of each subjects assignment but not the subjects. In the double-blind RCT the clinicians conducting the trial as well as their subjects are, both, unaware of the assignment of any of the subjects while the study is ongoing.
The double-blind RCT prevents the bias of the clinician from being overly attentive to one group, eg the treated group, over another group, eg the placebo group. It also prevents the clinician from accidentally revealing to the subject to which group they have been placed. The double-blind RCT is accepted to provide the most reliable data in research studies. The consequence of these parameters means that neither the clinician, the subject nor the subjects doctor may be aware of any given subject’s treatment parameters and their treatment details will be unavailable while the study is ongoing – this is where preset safeguards are relied upon to alert of any potential deterioration in the subjects’ health. There are, in fact, additional sub-classifications of RCT, but in general, I believe these are more detail than is warranted to pursue here.
Once the groups are chosen, the treatment is applied to one group and the placebo, or it could be an alternate treatment as well, is applied to the second group. Data is collected as prescribed by the design of the study. In the case of the double-blind study, the data is not analyzed by the clinicians conducting the trial, but by a second set of clinicians who would have access to the data during the trial. The outcome of the data will generally be used to draw some conclusion between the two groups, such as with the vaccines, were they effective in their goal of being protective against the disease. The use of the randomness at the outset of the trial will allow probability.
There are many significant legal and, dare I mention ethical, parameters that must be met while conducting a RCT. Full disclosure must be made to each of the subjects regarding the fact that, in spite of safety protocols established by the study, the employed treatment may provide no benefit and might actually be harmful to the subject, as research is not intended as medical treatment and the subject is not the primary focus of the research(harshly stated, but simply true).
The disclosure would also include the full disclosure of the potential harms, if known, and benefits to each member of the study and the fact that they may be assigned, unknowingly, to either group. This disclosure must be very thorough and not presented in legalese jargon that might make the information being relayed confusing or poorly understood – this is essential. There must be no force or coercion employed in gaining the consent of the subjects. There must also be pr-arranged triggers established at the outset of the trial such that if the subjects are endangered or are being harmed in any way during the study, the study will be halted.
/2
(1 of 3)
@Adam
So, RCT trials. Too much hype and influence has been placed upon the use of Randomized Control Trials,RCT, of late, though their use is highly valued, their use, til lately, has been historically infrequent due to their excessive cost and arduous manner required of the data collection. The purpose of any study is to provide a correlation between cause and effect. The RCT is designed to gain a greater insight into this relationship between two events, e.g. taking a drug and recovering from symptoms, however, no single study should be anticipated to ‘prove’ this relationship certain – and this is what the public at large, regretfully, does not appreciate, but more on this at the end.
The randomness of the trial is directed at the candidates being chosen for one of two groups(there could be more than two groups compared, but for simplicity, let’s keep it at two). The two groups will not be chosen by the clinician conducting the trial, the subject of the study, nor the subjects doctor – it is completely random. The two groups, though chosen at random should have two groups that approximate each other in every way, number of subjects, age distribution, health status, race, sex,…in every way possible. This is a lot of work when done by hand, but it is easily achieved with the use of computers where the random nature of things are forced into conformity in these different sub-categories, ie the subjects are still chosen at random to achieve two symmetrical groups to be tested.
The random nature of the subjects’ placement prevents the input of bias in their placement and prevents contaminating the outcome of the study – any bias is among the greatest problems in any study as it can easily influence the outcome of the study. The randomness also allows the two groups to have a balance among observed and unobserved traits, thus eliminating the impact of these traits upon the outcome of the trial. In fact the limits of the RCT may be seen to be set by the factors that are not considered when setting the parameters that need to be balanced – eg, if ethnicity or geographic locations are not assessed between the groups, there could be a distinction that could arise between the groups which could have an impact upon resulting data collected, simply due to the lack of applied symmetry between the randomized groups about the unconsidered traits, rather than the effectiveness of the treatments. Let me know if this is unclear, it is a very important point.
This allows the researchers to conclude that any distinction between the two groups are due to the differences in treatments rather than differences in the subjects themselves – which is why the RCT has the ability to provide so much better data than the convenience of an observational study, for example. This in turn allows the principles of probability to be applied to the resulting data.
/1
Large majority of those getting very sick from Delta variant are not vaccinated. Those who are vaccinated and catch the Delta variant are mostly asymptomatic or having mild symptoms like a cold.
Getting vaccinated is better for the individual and society.
I agree with all of your points, Peloni. Two questions: what are RCT trials? And what are the medications that you most recommend as profylaxis or early treatment for Covid?
I would submit that the “citizen’s duty” should be to survive, with as little risk and as marginal a cost, this plague that has captured the gov’ts of the world with their single-minded devotion towards their vaccine protocols.
Regardless of the gov’ts ignorance to the contrary and the media’s derisisions, there are clear and obvious support of safe treatments with clearly significant results utilizing drug therapies that have a long track record. There is an increasing support of RCT drug trials validating these findings, some have 3 RCT trials supporting their efficacious findings, and yet, we would prefer to utilize breaking edge research with increasing display of serious side-effects, not to mention the subject of patents and other matters. To whatever level of risk these serious side effects occur, they do occur. Why would anyone, anyone anywhere, place their lives and livelihoods(recall healthcare from the vaccine side-effects are not covered by any insurance) at such peril when there are very useful treatments.
This is not even discussing the possible use of treatments as prophylaxis. Why is the US, England, Israel, why do these nations ignore these safe treatment options over this vaccine. Billions and billions have been spent on this vaccine, and the expense keeps building as the limited length of the vaccine’s use, whatever that is, requires boosters after a matter of months. And in the past 18 months, not one dollar, not one pound and not one shekel has been provided towards the development of these current treatments – not by any gov’t. The resolve by these nations, and most others, towards this surrender to Pharma will have implications for us all. We should each inquire of our gov’t their reasons for pursuing unsafe practices over safe practices.
There can be no legitimate claim of doubt the vaccines hold some level of risk, and there is no reason to suspect that this risk is not dose dependent – and the risk is to the level of death. Hence, there remains many questions and many concerns and many alternate options to these experimental vaccines whose level of efficacy and safety are each unknown after their application to millions throughout the world while their death toll continues to build.
As of July 9, the injuries associated with these vaccines between the US, the UK and Europe, alone, are as follows:
Deaths – 29,934
Injuries total – 3,276,075
And these figures are now being claimed to be massively under-reported in the US at least.
Each citizen, everywhere, should do their duty to understand the significance of these figures and question their gov’ts wisdom in continuing this pursuit of vaccine-captured logic.
Obviously the vaccines caused a dramatic drop in reported COVID-19 cases for a time. But now the number of cases are going up again. Not just in Israel, but in many other countries as well. Obviously, the vaccinations are only a temporary fix. Their efficacy is only 5-6 months. So what does Israel, or any other country, do? Annual COVID-19 shots like annual flu, pneumococcal neumonia shots and other annual vaccines? Maybe. But that, if current thinking and policies continue, would mean declaring the “pandemic” a permanent phenomenon, and making mask-wearing, restrictions on public gatherings including marriages, funerals, synogogue and church services, etc., more or less permanently banned, large sections of the population in quarantine at any time, most “brick and mortar” retail stores having to close, etc. Is this really better than putting up with the fact that some people will get sick from the disease, but most will recover?
And what about the possible long-term bad side effects from the vaccinations? Since two of the vaccines use a completely novel biochemical process, we have no idea what the long-term side effects of the vaccinations may be. Except that some qualified immunologists and virologists think that they might tutn out to be serious.
Israel and the whole world need to resume normal social and economic activities and put up with the fact that a new pathogenic virus will be with us for the forseeable future. The alternative will be the permanent end to any life worth living for everyone, the end of organized religion, and a truly massive increase in depression, drug abuse and suicides.