I have to wonder if you even looked closely at this Brazil study?
THH statistical expertise was confirmed by 'unbiased' support for Ascolian assertions
also it tends to ignore detail which conflicts with THH constructs
so a reminder of the detail is always educational for THH..
THH statistical expertise was confirmed by unbiased support for Ascolian assertions
also tends to ignore detail which conflicts with THH constructs
so a reminder of the detail is always educational for THH..
It would be helpful if you provided said detail, in full?
Display More(1) doubly-blinded placebo-controlled RCTs are inherently less biassed than any observational trial. This is a particular class of trials where we know bias is more of a problem than usual, so that counts.
Why do we know bias is more of a problem (other than the obvious things)? Because if you chart RoB against results for ivermectiin trials you get this very obvious line with higher RoB => larger apparent effect, with zero RoB => no statistically significant effect.
(2) This study does look better than some observational studies, but that is not saying a lot.
Good: clear methodology for patient selection etc
Bad: no sensitivity checks
Appalling: Propensity score is all wrong. (And it is that which determines the results).
Problematic, they do not mention how they chose their propensity score, or why they thing it is appropriate - that would be picked up in any decent peer review.
Why is the propensity score wrong?
It bands age into < 30, 30 - 50, > 50. These bands seem to be what they use for the PSM.
Thus for matching purposes an 80 year old and a 50 year old will match, but the 80 year old has 30X higher risk of mortality.
For COVID there is no excuse using wide bands on age - they lead to big artifacts, and in this case it is a very large study so difficult to see why they do this? COVID has this particular predictable and strong dependence on age. Not all illnesses are like that - and it means that above all you have to be careful how you adjust/match/score for age.
It is a shame because they could easily have done some sensitivity analysis with different bands, or a comparison, for example using logistic regression, to show that there was no problem. But then either of those would show there is a problem.
Interestingly this problem with large age bands is the same issue that make a lot of the comparisons on whole population mortality with vaccination data also invalid. You need narrow bands to reduce confounders.
Who peer reviewed this?
THH
More comment about that ivermectin trial which Shane likes, but which seems (to an amateur like me) totally weird in its use of large propensity matching age bands which are obviously wrong for COVID. I think actually they kludges the PSM stuff retrospectively onto the original study to try to answer criticism and of course needed these large bands - but maybe not given the very many methodological issues raised in the link below.
Also, while one lead author being fraudulent does not necessarily make a multi-authored paper the same it is worrying:
Members of this research group have raised questions, too, about research published by Dr. Flavio Cadegiani on various Covid-19 treatments, including ivermectin and proxalutamide, that exhibited bizarre statistical patterns inconsistent with randomization. They also raised concerns about research into the anti-parasite medication nitazoxanide, which turned out to be riddled with statistical errors and data analysis problems. (Meanwhile, other researchers have noted that Cadegiani’s papers claim a horrifying death rate in the control group. One explanation is fabricated data; another is medical malpractice, prompting a parliamentary inquiry in Brazil to accuse Cadegiani of crimes against humanity.)
The real question for people here is why W, Shane, FM1, RB consider themselves experts in this stuff, which is complex, and competent to contradict the real experts. I would not be happy to do that!
Very useful numbers, at last, on vaccine & survivor immune escape.
From these samples, we see with respect to Nabs, those 2x vaccinated have stronger immune protection than those previously infected, but in both cases the level of protection is greatly reduced relative to previous variants.
This is why we see Omicron spreading out of control wherever it goes -- the population immunity built up from vaccination and previous infection doesn't do much to prevent Omicron, and thus nearly all in the population are susceptible to infection if exposed.
Note that this study only focuses on Nabs, which is only one element of the immune system, and other elements, including T-cells, also play a role in the immune response, which is one of its limitations. It does not contain epidemiological data estimating re-infection or breakthrough infection rates for Omicron.
However, Nabs have been shown to be strongly predictive of protection vs. infection, e.g. in this excellent Nature Medicine paper from Spring 2021, so are a useful laboratory surrogate for assessing immune escape of variants against particular vaccines or previous infection.
Those with "hybrid immunity" who were both vaccinated and previously infected are more strongly protected, but still not nearly as much as for previous variants. Also, although this paper did not look at those 3x vaccinated (i.e. boosted), other studies have shown that this group has much higher Nabs than 2x vaccinated, and levels similar or better than what is seen in those with "hybrid immunity." It is too bad this study did not have data on this group to make direct comparisons.
The real question for people here is why W, Shane, FM1, RB consider themselves experts in this stuff, which is complex, and competent to contradict the real experts. I would not be happy to do that
Your experts have been all over the place during this pandemic. When they start getting it right more often than wrong, I will shut up.
Your experts have been all over the place during this pandemic. When they start getting it right more often than wrong, I will shut up.
Shane, are you saying because science is uncertain, and therefore scientists do not always know what will happen, that when they do have a clear idea they must be wrong?
And then are you saying that in those cases it is so obvious you are more likely to get it right than them? Because often they are not certain?
Weird.
I am sure they are the answer, and so is just about every doctor and public health experts on God's Green Earth.
You spread outraging fake news. The majority of doctors & researchers does not recommend RNA fake vaccines. RNA gene therapy is against science and can never be/act like a vaccine.Only dumb bones believe such fake news.
RNA gene therapy is and was since ever an immune stimulation with tons of side effects and not even in cancer therapy the success rate is high enough to call it a reliable therapy.
May be in 20 years it will get closer to a vaccine if a different mode of application is found.
Shane, are you saying because science is uncertain, and therefore scientists do not always know what will happen, that when they do have a clear idea they must be wrong?
And then are you saying that in those cases it is so obvious you are more likely to get it right than them? Because often they are not certain?
Weird.
We are talking about the healthcare sciences. They get it wrong quite often as has been well chronicled. Yes, they try to be as conclusive as their colleagues studying inanimate systems, but it is hard to do when dealing with humans. We humans do have a tendency to defy quantification with our silly little weaknesses like emotions, jealousy, greed, etc.
That is not to say these experts do not do a lot of good for humanity. Obviously they do as our standard of living, and health keeps improving. But just as we humans are difficult to quantify, these researchers are humans too and introduce their own irrational variables into their own studies.
This pandemic has made that glaringly obvious, and may have amplified it. We have seen how personal political views, money, grants, fear of being blacklisted/canceled, greed, revolving doors, and envy, creeps subliminally into these studies, and can be a bigger influence on the results/conclusions of a trial, than the actual data collected.
Obviously they do as our standard of living, and health keeps improving.
Not so for USA. This poor folks are raped by US big pharma and live expectancy goes back...
To much crap has been waved through by the FM/R/B gang that high jacked FDA,CDC big pharma hospitals..
Opioids did already kill many more that 1 million US citizens... All for private profit of the sacking gang...
Not so for USA. This poor folks are raped by US big pharma and live expectancy goes back...
To much crap has been waved through by the FM/R/B gang that high jacked FDA,CDC big pharma hospitals..
Opioids did already kill many more that 1 million US citizens... All for private profit of the sacking gang...
True. I dd not want to complicate the discussion by noting how subhuman we in the US have become. 
Speaking though as a temporary occupant of planet earth, and not as a citizen of the US, IMO we have a much improved standard of living, and live much longer due in large part to THH's colleagues over there in his University's Health Sciences Department.
Israel did report about 70'000 cases with close to 400'000 tests and a positive rate of 20%.
This is pretty exactly double of our cases with a positive rate of 40%. This shows the good linear dependency of positive rate and cases detected. It also shows that tests must grow about 3-4x to find double the cases. So with a positive rate of 10% and 1.6 mio tests you would find 140'000 cases. 5% = 280'000 cases. With 5% you still miss about 50% of all cases. Of course this just works for 2-4 weeks...Further with delta more people had real symptoms and did ask for tests...
So the main activity on this website is an ongoing debate about Covid-19 and it is tucked away in a thread called “The Playground” to indicate that it is not an appropriate topic. Who exactly is this subterfuge supposed to be fooling? How about acting like grownups and call this thread “Covid-19 Discussion” or something similar? i’m sure the LENR police will let you slide.
We are talking about the healthcare sciences
Healthcare sciences and BigPharma finances
In 2017 this was written about healthcare
" if such a level of fatalities was to happen in aviation, airlines would stop flying, airports would close, there would be congressional hearings and there would be a presidential commission.
No one would be allowed to fly until the problem had been solved."
Currently the rich world is flying with a new pilot .Pfizer.
.. the greedy pilot
So the main activity on this website is an ongoing debate about Covid-19 and it is tucked away in a thread called “The Playground” to indicate that it is not an appropriate topic. Who exactly is this subterfuge supposed to be fooling? How about acting like grownups and call this thread “Covid-19 Discussion” or something similar? i’m sure the LENR police will let you slide.
This decision to move both Rossi and Covid discussion into the 'Playground' was taken not lightly, but following a lot of discussion, both internally, and with our external advisors who are scientists working in the field. None of the forum team feel strongly that we have lost anything important by taking this action, even though we knew there would be a few dissenting voices. This is a cold fusion forum, and that should therefore be the dominant topic.
both Rossi
RIP in PG
This pandemic has made that glaringly obvious, and may have amplified it. We have seen how personal political views, money, grants, fear of being blacklisted/canceled, greed, revolving doors, and envy, creeps subliminally into these studies, and can be a bigger influence on the results/conclusions of a trial, than the actual data collected.
Agreed. (except that we have not seen, certainly not in the UK, any cases of fear of grants influencing science to any appreciable extent. Even in the money-driven US just because somone claims it happens does not mean it happens).
And all the more reason to look towards what the scientists who do science not politics say (fallible and uncertain though they are) rather than politicians, political blogs, opinionated blogs, social media, gut feeling.
I mean "what will the next variant be?" no-one can know.
How well does ivermectin, a vaccine, etc work? That is a question on which we now have lots of data: and it is a scientific question. The answers will never be certain, but to avoid the science and go for politics is a bad idea.
I'm not suggesting that in the US, where politics has taken over science to a fair extent, you should believe what the politicians say, or even the political appointee scientists.
You could in that case be looking to other places and the scientists are not so political and have a consensus on quite a lot of these issues - that is your best guess as to what is right, even though it will sometimes be wrong.
BTW there are quite a number of non-political scientists in the US too! But not in the various PR pressure groups like FLCC...
Best wishes, Tom
Another anti bat
Echinacea as a Potential Force against Coronavirus Infections? A Mini-Review of Randomized Controlled Trials in Adults and Children
Abstract
Echinacea purpurea has been shown to broadly inhibit coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. This review discusses the available clinical evidence from randomized, blinded and controlled human studies. Two RCTs capturing incidence of viral respiratory tract infections during Echinacea preventative treatment were identified including coronavirus infections. Incidence and/or viral loads were measured by RT-PCR and symptom severity was recorded. In a first study, Jawad et al. collected nasopharyngeal swabs from adults (N = 755) over 4 months of continuous prevention. Overall, 24 and 47 enveloped virus infections occurred, including 21 and 33 coronavirus detections (229E; HKU1; OC43) with Echinaforce® extract (2400 mg daily) and placebo, respectively (p = 0.0114). In a separate study, Ogal et al. administered the same extract (1200 mg) or control for 4 months to children (4–12 years) (N = 203). Echinacea reduced the incidence of enveloped virus infections from 47 to 29 (p = 0.0038) whereas 11 and 13 coronavirus detections (229E, OC43, NL63) were counted (p > 0.05). Respiratory symptoms during coronavirus infections were significantly lower with area-under-curve AUC = 75.8 (+/−50.24) versus 27.1 (+/−21.27) score points (p = 0.0036). Importantly, viral loads in nasal secretions were significantly reduced by 98.5% in the Echinacea group, with Ct-values 31.1 [95% CI 26.3; 35.9] versus 25.0 [95% CI 20.5; 29.5] in the control group (p = 0.0479). Results from clinical studies confirm the antiviral activity found for Echinacea in vitro, embracing enveloped respiratory pathogens and therefore coronaviruses as well. Substantiating results from a new, completed study seem to extrapolate these effects to the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infections. As hypothesized, the established broad antiviral activity of Echinacea extract appears to be inclusive for SARS-CoV-2.
Fluvoxamine’s Moment: How a Controversial Off-Patent Psychiatric Treatment Went Legit
A small study of the efficacy of an established psychiatric drug to treat COVID-19 has generated outsized buzz despite being conducted on a shoestring budget.
Two psychiatry professors at the University of Washington in St. Louis, Angela Reiersen and Eric Lenze, won a $20,000 grant to explore the effect of fluvoxamine, a 39-year-old serotonin reuptake inhibitor that is most often used for obsessive compulsion disorders, on SARS-CoV-2.
Small Clinical Trial Showed Promise
The team eventually published their initial findings in 2020 based on a study of 152 non-hospitalized, first-week COVID patients. Of that group, 80 patient volunteers were selected to receive fluvoxamine while 72 received a placebo.
Larger Brazilian Study Validates Fluvoxamine’s Potential
Despite controversy over fluvoxamine and other repurposed drugs proposed for COVID treatments, their study was recently featured in the Philadelphia Inquirer.
After two weeks, six of the patients receiving placebo suffered shortness of breath or pneumonia, while none of those treated with fluvoxamine experienced such symptoms.
Reiersen and Lenze followed up their initial study with a 1,500-participant, 28-day clinical trial study called TOGETHER in Brazil, which reported that 16 percent of patients on the placebo needed hospitalization for at least six hours compared to 11 percent of participants on fluvoxamine, a statistically significant differential.
John Hopkins Notices New COVID Treatment
That study, which was run by McMaster University Professor Ed Mills, resulted in fluvoxamine’s inclusion in John Hopkins University’s and John Hopkins Hospital’s COVID updated treatment guidelines in November 2020.
While the efficacy of fluvoxamine and other repurposed drugs against COVID remains a contested issue in the pharmaceutical research and clinical trials field, its emergence is a sign that even under-resourced studies can have broad impacts on treatment protocols.
Cheap Repurposed Drugs Benefit Patients, Undercut Pharma Profits
Like ivermectin, another off-patent repurposed drug that has been widely studied for its use against COVID infection, fluvoxamine is much cheaper than the current crop of coronavirus vaccines. Fluvoxamine costs $4 for a 10-day treatment, compared to $530 per course of Pfizer’s Paxlovid and $700 for Merck’s molnupiravir, two antivirals. Monoclonal antibodies for COVID cost more than $2,000.
Despite fluvoxamine’s potential efficacy against COVID, its low-cost and off-patent status undermines incentives for its manufacture and sale by pharmaceutical companies, which have made billions of dollars in profits from newly patented COVID vaccines and treatments
This is a cold fusion forum, and that should therefore be the dominant topic.
And is it?
