Posted on 01/09/2022 8:44:56 AM PST by David Chase
A leading QAnon promoter who urged both her followers and strangers she passed on the street not to take the COVID vaccine died Thursday of the coronavirus, making her just the latest vaccine opponent killed by the disease.
Cirsten Weldon had amassed tens of thousands of followers across right-wing social media networks by promoting the pro-Trump QAnon conspiracy under the screenname “CirstenW.” She was prominent enough to become a sort of QAnon interpreter for comedian conspiracy theorist Roseanne Barr and started recording videos about QAnon with her.
In late December, however, Weldon started showing symptoms of coronavirus infection. In her last video, posted on Dec. 28, Weldon struggled through her remarks about the coming overthrow of the United States government, coughing and complaining that she was exhausted.
Three days later, Weldon was hospitalized in Camarillo, California. She posted a picture of herself wearing an oxygen mask to Instagram and claimed she had “bacterial pneumonia.” Weldon wrote in a post on the social media network Telegram that she refused to take coronavirus treatment remdesivir, calling it “Dr Fauci’s Resmedervir (sic).”
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
griswold3 wrote: “remdesivir Avoid at all costs. Causes Kidney failure.”
So does covid. Approximately fifty percent of those hospitalized for covid suffer from kidney failure.
Get the shot. Die.
Don’t get the shot. Die.
Grow old. Die.
Discover the dark secrets behind the Universe and twist their arcane energies to my will enabling me to continue living long after my natural span has passed...
Profit.
Yeah I don’t have time to read each one of those and I don’t have that much interest in continually pointing out your Links and not saying anything different than me.
This link for example: https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/08000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.7.aspx
“ Data sources:
We searched bibliographic databases up to April 25, 2021. Two review authors sifted for studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted and certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach and additionally in trial sequential analyses for mortality. Twenty-four randomized controlled trials involving 3406 participants met review inclusion.
Therapeutic Advances:
Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19–0.73; n = 2438; I2 = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). This result was confirmed in a trial sequential analysis using the same DerSimonian–Laird method that underpinned the unadjusted analysis. This was also robust against a trial sequential analysis using the Biggerstaff–Tweedie method. Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% (95% confidence interval 79%–91%). Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence. Low-certainty evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for “need for mechanical ventilation,” whereas effect estimates for “improvement” and “deterioration” clearly favored ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials and evidence of no difference was assessed as low certainty. Evidence on other secondary outcomes was very low certainty.”
((((Ok, so they used 3,406 participants from numerous and various Countries. Good. They’re 95% confidant the methods and research was done correctly. Good. Reduced infection was an average of 86%. Good.
“ Low-certainty evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for “need for mechanical ventilation…..”
So again, in Severe Cases Ivermectin does Not increase positive outcomes.))))
Again from the link:
COVID-19 treatment studies
Ahmed 202023 Bangladesh Double-blind BPL(Pharma); Bangladesh, Canada, Sweden, and UK govt Mild to moderate COVID (inpatients) 72 12 mg × 1 day or × 5 days (3 study arms)* Placebo Published in PR journal; emailed/responded with data Time to viral clearance (PCR –ve), remission of fever and cough within 7 days, duration of hospitalization, mortality, failing to maintain sats >93%, adverse events, PCR –ve at 7 and 14 days
Babalola 2020105 Nigeria Double-blind Self-funded Asymptomatic, mild or moderate COVID (45 inpatients and 17 outpatients) 62 6 mg every 84 hrs × 2 wks (arm 1) or 12 mg every 84 hrs × 2 wks (arm 2) Ritonavir/lopinavir MedRxiv preprint: emailed/responded with data. Paper accepted for publication Time to PCR –ve, laboratory parameters (platelets, lymphocytes, clotting time), clinical symptom parameters
Bukhari 2021135 Pakistan Open-label None reported Mild to moderate COVID (inpatients) 100 12 mg × 1 dose SOC MedRxiv preprint Viral clearance, any adverse side effects, mechanical ventilation
Chaccour 202024 Spain Double-blind Idapharma, ISGlobal, and the University of Navarra Mild COVID (outpatients) 24 0.4 mg/kg × 1 dose Placebo Published in PR journal PCR +ve at day 7, proportion symptomatic at day 4,7,14,21, progression, death, adverse events
Chachar 2020112 Pakistan Open-label Self-funded Mild COVID (outpatients) 50 12 mg at 0, 12, and 24 hours (3 doses) SOC Published in PR journal Symptomatic at day 7
Chowdhury 2020136 Bangladesh Quasi-RCT None reported Outpatients with a +ve PCR (approx. 78% symptomatic) 116 0.2 mg/kg x1 dose* HCQ 400 mg 1st day then 200 mg BID × 9 days + AZM 500 mg daily × 5 days Research square preprint Time to –ve PCR test; period to symptomatic recovery; adverse events
Elgazzar 202047 Egypt RCT None reported Mild to severe COVID (inpatients) 200 0.4 mg/kg daily × 4 days HCQ 400 mg BID × 1 day then 200 mg BID × 9 days Research square preprint: emailed/responded with data Improved, progressed, died. Also measured CRP, D-dimers, HB, lymphocyte, serum ferritin after one week of treatment
Fonseca 202144 Brazil Double-blind Institution-funded Moderate to severe (inpatients) 167 14 mg daily × 3 days (plus placebos × 2 additional days) HCQ—400 mg BID on day 0 then daily × 4 days; CQ -450 mg BID day 0 then daily × 4 days Prepublication data/manuscript in progress obtained via email Death, invasive mechanical ventilation
Gonzalez 2021137 Mexico Double-blind Institution-funded Moderate to severe (inpatients) 108 12 mg × 1 dose Placebo MedRxiv preprint Length of hospital stay, invasive mechanical ventilation, death, time to negative PCR
Hashim 2020138 Iran Quasi-RCT None reported Mild to critical (inpatients) 140 0.2 mg/kg × 2 days*
Some had a 3rd dose a week later SOC MedRxiv preprint Death, mean time to recovery, disease progression (deterioration)
Krolewiecki 2020106 Argentina Open-label None reported Mild to moderate (inpatients) 45 0.6 mg/kg/d × 5 days Placebo Research Gate and SSRN preprints Viral load reduction in respiratory secretions day 5, IVM concentrations in plasma, severe adverse events
Lopez-Medina 202185 Columbia Double-blind Institution-funded Mild (outpatients) 476 0.3 mg/kg elixir × 5 days Placebo Published in a PR journal Resolution of symptoms within 21 days, deterioration, clinical condition, hospitalization, adverse events
Mahmud 2020107 Bangladesh Double-blind None reported Mild to moderate COVID (inpatients) 363 12 mg × 1 dose* Placebo + SOC Data published on clinical trial registry and clarification obtained via email Improvement, deterioration, late clinical recovery, persistent PCR test +ve
Mohan 2021110 India Double-blind Institution-funded Mild to moderate 152 12 mg or 24 mg elixir × 1 dose Placebo MedRxiv preprint research Conversion of RT-PCR to negative result, decline of viral load at day 5 from enrollment
Niaee 2020108 Iran Double-blind Institution-funded Mild to severe COVID 180 0.2 mg/kg × 1 and 3 other dosing options) ∼ 14 mg tablet† Placebo Research Square preprint Deaths, length of stay, biochemical parameters
Okumus 2021115 Turkey Quasi-RCT None reported Severe COVID 66 0.2 mg/kg × 5 days SOC Prepublication data/manuscript in progress obtained via email Clinical improvement, deterioration, death, SOFA scores
Petkov 2021139 Bulgaria Double-blind Pharma-funded Mild to moderate COVID 100 0.4 mg/kg × 3 days Placebo Prepublication data obtained from another source Rate of conversion to PCR negative
Podder 2020140 Bangladesh Open-label
((((The cases being studied are almost exclusively Mild or Mild to Moderate. A couple of severe cases where used but not report or findings presented.
Once again, this is what I’ve been saying.))))
So I don’t know what you’re purpose is, what you’re out to prove or disprove.
But I have a life to live and Covid and vaccines isn’t a major part of it.
Have a great day. Glad you helped demonstrate that what I’ve been saying matches all of the most up to date data out there.
Thanks again.
Well, first of all, it's not up to me to decide.
Ivermectin is available and people are getting it.
“As far as Ivermectin Studies, there have been none that have been conclusive and only one that was peered review and it was found to have errors.
The Studies done however that are not peer reviewed Do give Ivermectin credence for mild and some moderate cases.
What I am proving is that there are many peer-reviewed Ivermectin studies. You said there were none. Additionally, there never is just one study that proves anything, it is a preponderance of evidence and one may be enough to show a valid conclusion, but it’s then up to us to determine if that limited research is enough for us to try out, based on the risks involved..
bagster wrote: “TAKING the vaccine is stupid. People die from it.”
Can you provide a link from a credible source to specific individuals that have died from the vaccine?
Thumper1960 wrote: “With all due disrespect, eff off.”
Why? Because I don’t believe in the QAnuts conspiracy theories?
Bacterial Pneumonia is different than Viral Pneumonia.
Bacterial Pneumonia is NOT Covid.
There’s a fairly reliable way to know if a poster leans to the narcissistic side.
By looking at how often they speak about themselves in their posts.
“ Bacterial Pneumonia is different than Viral Pneumonia.
Bacterial Pneumonia is NOT Covid.”
—————————————————————————————————————————-
You are correct, Bacterial Pneumonia and Viral Pneumonia are different.
Covid-19 is known for serious cases of Bacterial Pneumonia.
New England Journal of Medicine:
https://www.jwatch.org/na54035/2021/09/10/identifying-bacterial-pneumonia-patients-with-severe-covid
“ Identifying Bacterial Pneumonia in Patients with Severe COVID-19
Neil M. Ampel, MD, reviewing Pickens CO et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2021 Aug 19
Tests of bronchoalveolar lavage samples from intubated patients showed that only one fifth had evidence of an early bacterial infection and fewer than half developed ventilator-associated pneumonia.
Although the incidence of bacterial superinfection together with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia is unknown, most patients with severe COVID-19 receive empiric antibacterial therapy. In this single-center retrospective observational study of 179 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who required mechanical ventilation, researchers evaluated the role of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) plus molecular diagnostics for identifying bacterial superinfection (defined as detection of a respiratory pathogen by quantitative culture or multiplex PCR).
BAL was performed within 48 hours of intubation in 133 patients, 28 of whom had documented bacterial superinfection pneumonia. Streptococcus species or methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus were found in 22 of the 28 cases (79%), consistent with community acquisition. In the 162 patients who remained intubated for >48 hours, another BAL was performed. At least one episode of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) was diagnosed in 72 (44%) of these patients, 15 of whom had a second VAP episode. Early VAP cases were associated with organisms susceptible to narrow-spectrum antibiotics.
COMMENT
These data indicate that early bacterial pneumonia occurs in about one fifth of patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and that subsequent VAP occurs in fewer than 50%. While the results endorse obtaining a BAL with PCR and quantitative culture in intubated patients to ascertain whether a bacterial infection is present and to help guide antimicrobial therapy, this tactic may not be reliable and could be costly. A narrower approach, such as obtaining samples in those patients who clinically deteriorate, might be more helpful.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
National Library of Medicine
National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.K.:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33393065/
“ Abstract
Severe 2019 novel coronavirus infectious disease (COVID-19) with pneumonia is associated with high rates of admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). Bacterial coinfection has been reported to be rare. We aimed at describing the rate of bacterial coinfection in critically ill adult patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. All the patients with laboratory-confirmed severe COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to the ICU of Tenon University-teaching hospital, from February 22 to May 7th, 2020 were included. Respiratory tract specimens were obtained within the first 48 h of ICU admission. During the study period, 101 patients were referred to the ICU for COVID-19 with severe pneumonia. Most patients (n = 83; 82.2%) were intubated and mechanically ventilated on ICU admission. Overall, 20 (19.8%) respiratory tract specimens obtained within the first 48 h. Staphylococcus aureus was the main pathogen identified, accounting for almost half of the early-onset bacterial etiologies. We found a high prevalence of early-onset bacterial coinfection during severe COVID-19 pneumonia, with a high proportion of S. aureus. Our data support the current WHO guidelines for the management of severe COVID-19 patients, in whom antibiotic therapy directed to respiratory pathogens is recommended.
Keywords: Bacterial coinfection; Coronavirus disease 2019; Intensive care unit; Pneumonia; Staphylococcus aureus.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Annals of the American Thoracic Society:
https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/10.1513/AnnalsATS.202009-1093RL
“Hospitalized patients, particularly those who are critically ill, are at risk for “secondary” infections (1, 2). Initial reports of patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) indicate that 10–33% develop bacterial pneumonia (3, 4) and 2–6% develop bloodstream infection (BSI) (5, 6). Few studies have reported patient characteristics or the impact of intensive care unit (ICU) admission on secondary infections (3, 6–8). We conducted a descriptive study to identify the prevalence, microbiology, and outcomes of secondary pneumonias and BSIs in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.”
“ What I am proving is that there are many peer-reviewed Ivermectin studies. You said there were none. Additionally, there never is just one study that proves anything, it is a preponderance of evidence and one may be enough to show a valid conclusion, but it’s then up to us to determine if that limited research is enough for us to try out, based on the risks involved..”
——————————————————————————————————————————
I don’t know your background so please forgive me for explaining something you may already know. Not trying to insult you.
The term “Peer Reviewed” is probably the latest phrase or words being misused that came from the present situation we’re in.
A “Peer Reviewed” Study has certain methods and criteria that it must meet.
There is a deep dive review of the data presented in the paper or study.
It is done by a collection of qualified experts in their prospective field.
Data is not added or subtracted, it is analyzed to make sure the study was done following all procedures.
What a “Peer Review” is Not.
It’s not an opinion paper with its own conclusions.
It’s not a collection of data put together with the presenters commenting and breaking the data down into stats.
It’s not a paper written by a group of (even qualified experts) researchers compiling their data vs. or added data from other sources.
The Links you provided were indeed impressive and as stated, I agree with the ones I read for the most part.
However I noticed the Links you provided (The ones I was able to get to at this moment) are indeed people who are probably experts in the field so therefore they are reviewing studies so in a way the phrase “Peer Review” can be use but it’s not an actual Peer Review study as we know it pre-Covid.
Get where I’m coming from? As I said I didn’t have time to read all of the information right now, but based on what I did read.
Your Links were very informative and I hope other people also read them.
Sorry, chemical boy. I'm not your dog and I don't fetch for you. If you don't know by now that the fake vax is a killer then you're beyond hopeless and sub-retarded. But I suppose you got a job to do.
Just see if you can stop insulting people's intelligence, would ya? ThankQ.
Would the lady have died if she had the vax? If you say 'no', I have a Follow-up question. Will you tell me how you know this?
#DoAsYoureTold
Oh, ffs. You're in over your head again, ninja boy. I don't think you see how you come off, but you would do well to heed my tutelage. I am the true master.
#StayInYourLane
#MaleNurse
#PartTimeCombatNinja
ThankQ. We call those 'dear diary' moments, in the business. And with this rabbit, it is a VERY large number.
You sure about that ninja boy? You seem to spend a lot of time defending the derp state's covid psyop and their deadly fake vax.
May I recommend giving it a rest to save yourself the embarrassment and returning to North Shao Lin temple for retraining in the basics? The covids will be here when you get back, if your people (the derps) have anything to say about it.
Made up stuff.
It is known.
You hold the secrets, the knowledge of the Cosmos.
Affirmative.
We should all consider ourselves blessed should you decide to give us a glimpse of your deep profound understanding.
Indeed.
You are on the road to enlightenment, grasshopper.
#BowToYourSensei
Exqueeze me? The balls on you. You strut around regurgitating the CDC line like it's the thing to do, and you don't 'pay attention' to them? Funny joke.
This is just another of your attempts to 'blend', like when you trash talk your papa Fauci, while parroting his garbage on the daily.
This just ain't working for you, Gaylord.
#YouTrollAsGoodAsYouNinja
It's orgasmic. The bigger the game, the more explosive the pleasure.
#OnSafari
#BringMeHumblegunner
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
