Dr. Jody Dalmacion on vaccine, Ivermectin, other Covid treatments

 I repost here two recent interviews of Dr. Jody Dalmacion, retired faculty member of UP College of Medicine (UPCM). Then her recent fb posts. Brave lady, bow.

IVERMECTIN IS A REPURPOSE DRUG - DR. JODY DALMACION
Aug 10, 2021 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8-j0RAsw9s

CDC Ph Weekly Huddle: Prof Jody Dalmacion on Vaccine Efficacy 08 14 21 
Published August 16, 2021 
https://rumble.com/vl7zbk-cdc-ph-weekly-huddle-prof-jody-dalmacion-on-vaccine-efficacy-08-14-21.html 
------------

July 23, 2021

Microbiology 101 and Ethics of Medical Communication 101

Ever wondered why there is no vaccine for HIV, a RNA virus like SARS Cov2? Vaccines will not likely work for RNA viruses like HIV and SARS CoV2 because these viruses can mutate very rapidly and render any vaccine useless sooner than you can come up with another one. To quote Dr.  McCullough known Texas cardiologist, researcher and prescriber of ivermectin and other drugs for covid 19 - “By pushing mass vaccination, governments have created evolutionary pressure on sars cov 2 (to mutate more rapidly to new variants). Without vaccines, mutation by RNA viruses occur following a more natural rate and  maybe to less virulent strains.

Case in point, in Israel - “nearly  40% of new covid patients were vaccinated- compared to just 1% who had been infected previously”.

At present, HIV is  successfully controlled with multi drug therapy (HAART) and Covid 19  can likewise be controlled by the use of drugs. Cases of covid 19 have recovered from treatment with ivermectin, O2 inhalation, antibiotics, vit D3, ascorbic acid, steroid, or fluovoxamine even remdesivir if given at the right time and patients accept risk  of acute renal failure or septic shock from it. Proof? Go ask the survivors. For long haulers,  fluvoxamine, IVM, statin and H1 blockers have been used.

Doctors who are responsible and patient-centered should spend less time posting misinformation and one sided findings against ivermectin  or any drugs. Please do the Filipinos and other doctors a favor, post correct information or data, NOT OPINIONS. Post  data and findings on the benefit  versus harm of the Covid 19 vaccines  instead of parroting  self serving news from drug companies. Much  better, push or conduct more researches on drugs or interventions to curb the repeated surges of covid 19 cases  from new variants. Help look for strategies to decrease viral transmission aside from imposing lockdowns that are more  harmful to the health of people, the environment and socioeconomic conditions of the country. The local Specialists in Infectious Diseases are not by default experts on covid 19 but they should be experts on infections like TB, dengue, HIV, leptospirosis, hepatitis which are  currently being neglected in our country during the pandemic.  About 74 Filipinos die every day of TB and reporting  of cases has gone down significantly during the pandemic. For those interested in treating  covid 19,  be humble and open your  minds to more possibilities through researches and stop acting as self declared experts of covid 19. Even one of the developers of  the mrna  vaccines, Dr. Robert  Malone said  that  real scientists work on hypothesis NOT Truth.  The majority of experts now  agree  that the direction  for controlling SARS CoV2  more effectively seem to be by multidrug  therapy, the same way it is being done for HIV.

July 26

Dr. Salvana posted a patient with negative RT PCR  for clearance  but since noted sniffling, he ordered a covid ag test which turned positive. First- you cant compare a test done 3 days ago to a different  type of test you did today, RT PCR is based on NAAT while covid antigen test is immunoassay; NAAT is  still the gold standard  for the DIAGNOSIS of covid because it is more sensitive  and specific than covid ag; CDC has interim guidance for  Covid Ag for screening in congregation but not recommended for  screening asymptomatics thus accompanying questionnaire on symptoms is advised by CDC, the covid Ag positive predictive  value may be  81.4% which is the probability that the patient really has the disease thus 18% can be false positive, if patient has flu and flu is commonly cause by coronaviruses, is there  a cross reactivity with sars cov2 that can give  false postive result with covid Ag test? and lastly I ask the good doctor, what is your diagnosis?

August 3

What is the legal and moral  basis for doctors of PGH and other hospitals asking for waiver from patients who want to use IVM?? Can someone please enlighten me?

August 5

To the DOH, the  Philippine Pediatric Society and all pediatricians before you decide on vaccinating the Filipino children - please  remember the Dengvaxia disaster. May I share my commentary on Dengvaxia with concepts on NNH and NNT  published in  the Journal  of Tropical Diseases - “Should hospitalization be an outcome for vaccine research?  “Unlike others, I never give an opinion on something I just read in google. Paging PPS, PSMID, FDA, Policy Bureau  of DOH, PCHRD etc to  share your own studies or at least systematic review of mrna vaccines for covid 19 in children. PLEASE do not merely cite fo reign  studies or WHO, consider the  reality of the Phil Health care system, sociodemographics, cost effectiveness (opportunity cost) and the dismal economic status of the country. I may have missed  RCTs on the efficacy and safety of anti covid vaccine for children that you have the privilege to have.Do tell. What is the evidence or data?

August 13

My reply to the UPCM Pharmacology was canceled  because it allegedly goes against community standards. This is a cowardly act of silencing the opinions of others. I am challenging even the Director general of the FDA to a debate on what vaccine adverse reaction reporting means, risk: benefit ratio assessment  and methodologies of causality determination. I am also accusing FB of abuse of discretion and tyranny. You shd be ashamed of calling yourself as following “standards” when you are actually just goons. But the truth will always prevail. Cheers.

August 13

Dear FB “ community standards” maraming maraming Salamat for confirming  that I am making an impact with my statements on the vaccine by removing my post. It is a badge of honor. Salamat po ulit . I am honored 😉

August 20

Is UP PGH anti vaxxer? The covid admissions in PGH  of  265 covid of which 187 were un vaxxed  and 79 vaxxed  looks  unfavorable  for the covid vaccines.

Why?

In a population that’s 11% vaccinated, if the vaccines have no efficacy whatsoever - meaning the vaccinated have the same risk of being hospitalized as the unvaccinated - you would expect only 11% of the 265 hospitalized  covid to be vaccinated which is 29 but  53  completely vaccinated got  hospitalized!!  (O ayan hindi ko na isinama partial. ) Based on the pfizer trial , only 5% of the vaccinated runs the risk of being hospitalized. So only 5% of the 11% of the 265 or 1.45  vaxxed persons should be in the  PGH hospitalized  cohort. Why 53?

Which also means that the unvaccinated are doing much better since 89% or 235 or 209 but there are only 187 unvaxxed!!!

Of the  assumed severe  hospitalized covid and progressed to the ICU, 9/187 or 4.8% were unvaxxed  while 2/53 or 3.8% were vaccinated. So the vaccinated had only a 1% advantage over the unvaxxed. As for intubation unvaccinated 6/7 or 67%; vaccinated, 1/2 or 50%, the latter having a 17% advantage.

This is not surprising if they only  understood the pfizer trial. But hey, they also misinterpreted Lopez Medina   IVM trial as of good quality.  The  attributable risk reduction in the pfizer trial with vaccine is less than  1%  and the numbers needed to vaccinated is about 135 . Relative risk reduction from the pfizer study  (95%)is only used to describe results in a clinical trial ie risk of covid ,8/21k or 0.038% in relation to the placebo or background risk of covid  which is only 162/21K or about 0.77% . But for public health interventions, ARR and NNV are more meaningful because it gives you the probable effect of the  intervention in the population.

Back to PGH data - The sample size is is too small and so many other factors weigh in. Thus warning on the possible overgeneralization. But PGH is actually conveying  a very bad message about Vaccine 😩😩 .

Dr. Dalmacion’s Rejoinder to the UP Manila statement Re: Safety of Covid-19 Vaccines 
August 18, 2021 
https://romeoquijanomd.net/2021/08/18/dr-dalmacions-rejoinder-to-the-up-manila-statement-re-safety-of-covid-19-vaccines/

Godofreda V. Dalmacion MD, epidemiologist, Retired Professor, Dept. of Pharmacology, College of Medicine, University of the Philippines Manila (published with her permission)

Apologies to my former colleagues at the Dept. of Pharmacology and Toxicology but in the interest of fairness and truth – I really have to react to your very bold statement that the benefit of the COVID-19 vaccines outweigh their risk. It was said so confidently that  it gives me the creeps without seeing any estimates.

The safety of the vaccines especially with the new platform remains uncertain and contentious (1).  Adverse event (AE) is a function of number and duration of exposure. Why?  Because toxicities can occur after a latent period and the effects of epigenetics play a role such as in male infertility, autoimmune disorders, cancers and other mutagenic effects. With the COVID-19 vaccines, AEs vary  based on age, e.g. clotting more in young females and myocarditis and pericarditis among young men 14-24 years old. Please refer to VAERS.

Secondly, vaccine-related toxicities are questions of excess risks, for example the background incidence of pericarditis is almost 0 in the normal young, so even 1 case after vaccination is significant and morally unacceptable.

Third, ALL the COVID-19 vaccines are under EUA and still under Phase 3 and thus incompletely studied. The Sample size of RCTs i.e. Pfizer are underpowered to determine efficacy, more so safety. Multi-country studies such as Pfizer’s vaccine trials are  methodologically flawed because the risk for COVID-19 across different countries are different.

Fourth, Pfizer study published in NEJM has only  18556  / 21720 evaluable  cases under the vaccine arm because 100 withdrew, 304 did not receive dose 2 , 62 were lost to follow-up, 28 had AEs, 2 withdrew and 1 died etc etc– all unfavorable information.

Fifth. The attributable risk reduction from vaccination based on the Pfizer study is only  0.733%. Epidemiologists planning on a public health intervention do not use RRR (relative risk reduction) but ARR (attributable risk reduction) and NNV (number needed to vaccinate). It is self-serving and misleading to use 95% relative risk reduction to describe the efficacy of  the vaccine. RRR only compares the reduction of risk of one who got the vaccine relative to the CONTROL IN THE STUDY, NOT the population.

Lastly, DOH data itself shows  a Case Fatality Rate of 1.74 % and  cases that are  mild and asymptomatic account for 96.5% of cases . Good Lord, maski hindi ka mag-vaccine ang baba ng risk for severe disease and hospitalizations mo from the infections! Thus the threshold for AE from the vaccines should be very, very low and the clotting, neurologic, cardiovascular and hematologic  adverse effects are theoretically unacceptable. Meantime, where are the cases overwhelming the hospital capacity coming from if only 4.5% of cases based on the DOH tracker is essentially severe? Maybe the Department  of Pharmacology  can explain the metrics and release a full discussion of their benefit:risk ratio calculation.

To all PLEASE  do not reduce discussion of alternative opinions TO AN ANTI-VAXXER ISSUE because it is cowardly and unprofessional. Thanks .

1) Jiang, S. Don’t rush to deploy COVID-19 vaccines and drugs without sufficient safety guarantees. Nature. (16 March 2020)