How can a simple Budesonide inhaler, reducing Covid admissions by 90%, not be big news? "The answer to the controversal jabs"! Don't journalists need scoops anymore?
Introduction
To continue to attenuate Covid dissemination through vaccinations, vaccinations should be done semi-annually. See this article by Maurice. It must be taken into account that the loss of protection against infection is a harbinger of what is going to happen to protection against getting sick and dying (I leave out possible negative effects due to these vaccines.) In any case, the prevention of getting infected by means of the tandem vaccination/coronapas no longer works, it is rather a false security by which people infect each other more easily and are more contagious than they think.
Developments such as these, in the opaque, poorly managed, unmonitored and therefore reckless implementation of the vaccination program constantly raise the question of whether a little less idealistic determination would not have been in order.
A Dutch minister made an explicit statement that he is willing to do anything to increase vaccination rates. That's quite something: through the ropes. Ruthless.
The implicit message is: I won't give other effective medications a chance because they lower vaccination readiness.
Does that go too far? If not, then it's simply not true that you are willing to do anything. So in that case, you have been misinforming the Chamber - oh dear: parliamentary inquiry etcetera.
However, being guided by science and advancing understanding is not consistent with "being willing to do anything" to achieve a historical idealistic goal that has major scientific holes in it. However, the House of Representatives is completely behind this, as evidenced by the silence following this striking statement. Even after de Jonge added, "Let that be said." Enjoyed and noted. "Ready for anything." Perhaps that is why we hear so little about Budesonide and ivermectin.
On effective medication: Budesonide peer reviewed
A virusvaria article dated March 7, 2021 covered a promising Budesonide study. Admittedly in pre-print, so there were still some blows in the wind. "If only that were true" was the hopeful thought at the time. Looking at the funders, my spirits sank: pharmaceutical companies. Previous studies on this scale of "vaccine competitors" were subsequently dismissed as "not significant. Today I went to see how things actually stood - turns out the study was published in April 2021 in The Lancet, peer reviewed and all! 90% fewer hospitalizations with timely home treatment! That's even better than ivermectin... Do you still understand? I don't, really. Reason for an updated re-post about a small-scale study with nevertheless significant results!
This research came about thanks to financial contributions from, among others: AstraZeneca, Roche Molecular Diagnostics, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer INC, Glaxo-SmithKline. (as neatly stated in the "Declaration of interests"). Who could have thought that such a modest set-up would lead to this result! (They didn't, I suspect)
"I'm afraid we won't hear much about it in the media." reads the March article. At least that fear has come true. I was under the impression that vaccines were allowed only conditionally because there was no good medicine available, so the media would not shout such a positive result from the rooftops.
Takeaways from the study
In bullet ponts the key points to remember:
- Rationale for the study: Patients with chronic respiratory disease were found to be significantly underrepresented in COVID-19 hospitalizations. This led to the hypothesis that respiratory drugs might also work in Covid.
- Further randomized study by NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) shows that the puff containing Budesonide, used against asthma, reduces Covid hospitalizations by 90%.
90% is the relative risk, directly comparable to the percentages mentioned with vaccinations (65%, 85%). And so to be used only at the first symptoms in (mildly) at-risk groups, not everyone has to be on it. It can also be used later, although the success rates then decrease. And in case of unexpected effects the treatment can be stopped, unlike the injection. The injection is then definitely in.
- Covid patients who used Budesonide recovered faster than those in the control group.
- LONG-COVID symptoms are also markedly reduced.
- Budesonide is one of the most widespread drugs, also readily available in less developed countries.
Why is this not widely applied?
Budesonide is used by asthma/COPD patients more frequently and for longer periods of time than single, relatively short Covid treatments. Side effects are then minimal and well known to (general) physicians.
This provides the ideal situation: the virus can just go around, it can immunize everyone, and only people who develop symptoms have to go to the doctor to get a prescription - and really only if they consider themselves vulnerable.
ivermectin is said to be scarce and unavailable. In that regard, be careful with budesonide because if you get them through this website , they can't supply you with more than a paltry 80,000 bottles a day... So if need be, the courier will be on your doorstep with a bottle for every Dutchman within a week.
The solution to the pressure on healthcare!
This drug can hopefully soon be on the pharmacy shelf alongside Ivermectin, Dexamethazone, HCQ/Zinc.
Or at the bottom of a drawer, in a back room of the rivm, the Dutch National Institute for Health & Environment .
Budesonide also comes in convenient OMT packaging: to be inserted via nasal droppers, hand pumps and wipes (just joking, our Outbreak Management Team still thinks everything goes by big droplets.)
Good luck! š
Different research, different results
Opponents will cite another study (also in The Lancet), which focused on its effect in the elderly - well 60+, who considers themselves old then huh - and those with comorbidities such as heart problems, COPD, chemotherapy etc. (aged 50 and over). That study yielded considerably less spectacular results.
Budesonide is also not compared there with "no treatment" or placebo and thus has a harder time standing out. Mainstream treatments have already improved dramatically since the reckless intubations on inflamed lungs. Budesonide is compared to "usual care" and "other care" in this study.
Of course, the drug cannot raise deceased people from the grave. Nevertheless, slight positive results were achieved even in those vulnerable groups.
Overall, the consistency of these findings across both primary and secondary endpoints provides the strongest evidence thus far of an effective, safe, cheap, and readily available treatment for COVID-19 in the community.
Conclusion Budesonide study among the elderly and vulnerable in The Lancet
Here the results just missed the pre-established significance threshold -though you should never say "just missed" in a true significance test. We are now used to results not being significant; it is actually an exception when a small study on Covid is significant; the virus has too low a morbidity effect and too few people die. To measure that significantly you would have to organize gigantic trials, which can't be done because of ethical concerns. Unless you are willing to do anything maybe, we have seen that kind of experiment before in history.
So again this necessitates testing on poor laboratory animals. Terrible. When I think of the mice that were injected with mRNA into their tiny bloodstreams to all die a miserable death while still having no place to crawl away.
Thus, opponents of medication will also refer to the phrase "only 2% reduction in mortality." But those are percentage points: from 11% to 9% mortality is an 18% reduction - in the elderly and vulnerable! Vaccines are not measured in absolute risks either, so why here. If a vaccine reduces mortality from 0.15% to 0.12%, the absolute risk reduction is 0.03%. Communicated is the relative percentage: 20%. So why not here too: also almost 20% to be saved from certain death! Why doesn't it happen? Because we are willing to do anything?
Links:
Link to the peer reviewed research in The Lancet: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(21)00160-0/fulltext
The Article from Oxford University: https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-02-09-common-asthma-treatment-reduces-need-hospitalisation-covid-19-patients-study#
(The full pre-print report: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.04.21251134v1.full-text)
Link to the Fewer soectcular results among over-65s and over-50s with comorbidities
In vitro study: Budesodine has antiviral effect (article Pulse today: https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/clinical-areas/respiratory/no-update-to-budesonide-guidance-as-study-confirms-covid-efficacy/ )
