Pretending to be you? Or him? That's hilarious too. Unless it is bothering him.
He pretends to be me! I think he’s related to that wikipedia lawsuit (a.k.a. ‘The Lolsuit’) that Abd was threatening some young scamps with a while back. Abd, to his credit, rarely falls for it.
90% of the stuff you post is so wacky
the UK govt is (unsuccessfully) trying a Whack-a-Mole strategy for COVID.
I do however think it works on half-baked conspiracy theories. Wait till one emerges in a form clear enough to distinguish and "Whack" hit it with a few common-sense facts and a good dose of google.
post exposure prophylaxis..
So far there have been 16 PrEP-pre exposure
and 6 PEP post exposure studies on HCQ use for CoVid analysed @
including Boulware et al
PEP..A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19
"COVID-19 cases are reduced by [49%, 29%, 16%] respectively when taken within ~[70, 94, 118] hours of exposure (including shipping delay"
"
So why are we not using this routinely in the UK? Why was chloroquine suddenly removed from all the pharmacies at the beginning of the pandemic? Normally available for travel to malarial regions? As I questioned right at the beginning of this thread, why are we letting people die unnecessarily? The second wave is here now and no-one here has the sense to start using the appropriate medicines....its up to those few in the know to obtain their own supplies from abroad and stock on up their own independently from the NHS. Is it available privately? Reserved for the one-percent?
Interesting research on mice.. via James Todaro,MD
Nasal priming with coronavirus protects against lethal lung infection
""In summary, we demonstrate that nasal exposure to coronavirus remotely primes lung immunity in the absence of direct lung infection, and that such priming provides effective protection against subsequent lethal viral infection in the lungs."
Of course well laid research on mice can oft gang aglay in humans..
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6124400/
So why are we not using this routinely in the UK?
The UK is not alone.. NZ and Australia are
still part of the Commonwealth of HCQ restriction
New Brunswick appears to have more Liberté than the rest of Canada
Display MoreEarly HCQ results from analysis of ~5500 patient visits to ambulatory care..Saudi Arabia
"CONCLUSION: Early intervention with HCQ-based therapy in patients with mild to moderate symptoms at presentation is associated with lower adverse clinical outcomes among COVID-19 patients,
including hospital admissions, ICU admission, and/or death.
I looked at the proportions of patients in the >65 range. 10/1356 for HCQ (0.55%), 154/3724 SC (4.17%). Thus this group - the ones with vastly greater risk than the younger patients, which we would expect to contain most of the deaths and hospitalisations, has 10X more under SC than HCQ. The next at risk group (50-64) has 13.8% SC to 11.4% HCQ.
I had some other issues with the ways the stats were done (binning ages instead of using age as continuous parameter - though the details here are not made clear in the paper, if they has exact ages as well the could have used them as continuous variates in addition to the binning - however I think that unlikely. So, if this is the case, any results from this are unsafe because in these large bins the exact ages are critical to odds, and we know from the data that the age distributions are very different in the two cases that are compared).
I then looked at the comments - others had the same idea as me.
Can you provide the distribution by age of the deaths, I can't find it in the paper. What I read is that there are 8 times more people in the stratum age>65yo, while the mortality is only 3 to 4 times higher. If mortality occurs only in the >65yo, then this work shows 1-that HCQ is not given to elderlies and 2-potentially that HCQ is actually harmful.
Yeah, but it's not true that mortality only occurs in >=65yo. Worldwide, ICU admission and mortality for >=65yo is on the order of 25%. Applying that to the 154 old patients given standard care and the 10 old patients given HCQ would mean that 56 of the ICU admissions/deaths occurred for <65yo in the standard care pool, which is 1.6%, and 7 of the ICU admissions/deaths occurred for <65yo in the HCQ pool, which is 0.4%. You can obviously play around with the probability of >=65yo suffering morbidity/mortality with standard care, and get different relative results for HCQ on the <65yo subgroup, but using something so high that it implies everybody in ICU was >=65yo is obviously wrong.
We have shown that COVID19 patients on Hydroxychloroquine treatment had positive outcomes.
No you didn't. You showed that patients with a much lower risk of dying are dying less than the ones with a higher risk. Congratulations.
Display MoreInteresting research on mice.. via James Todaro,MD
Nasal priming with coronavirus protects against lethal lung infection
""In summary, we demonstrate that nasal exposure to coronavirus remotely primes lung immunity in the absence of direct lung infection, and that such priming provides effective protection against subsequent lethal viral infection in the lungs."
Of course well laid research on mice can oft gang aglay in humans..
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6124400/
Yes - it would be nice to see similar SARS-COV-2 work - but I guess they do not have controlled access to the virus so easily. Perhaps they do - if they can do vaccine challenge tests on rhesus monkeys they can surely test this.
""In summary, we demonstrate that nasal exposure to coronavirus
Corrobrative evidence (weak) from a dumpsite in Manila
to where my friend directs charity.
that prior infection by a variety of coronaviruses is protective
Covid appears to have very little effect among the residents
which is fortunate because there is very little medical support, clean water etc in the locale
Perhaps pug-pug is prophylactic as well.
I mean, killing off octogenarians has long been recognised as a formidable military tactic.
Phew! Just under the bar!
A study concluding vitamn D deficenccy and upper respiratory illness and it's relationship to covid 19
The evidence keeps building that the easiest and cheapest way out of this is as simple as supplementing vitamin D. The more I look into this the more it looks like vitamn D deficenccy and the effects on immune system has been overlooked by the medical community for many years
a more recent study on vitamin D deficenccy and covid from the University of Chicago
A study concluding vitamn D deficenccy and upper respiratory illness and it's relationship to covid 19
The evidence keeps building that the easiest and cheapest way out of this is as simple as supplementing vitamin D. The more I look into this the more it looks like vitamn D deficenccy and the effects on immune system has been overlooked by the medical community for many years
Fm1. I'd like you to consider carefully what this paper actually says, and what that means.
It identifies a strong positive correlation between low levels of vitamin D and COVID infection.
You, from your post, are interpreting this as low Vitamin D makes individual more vulnerable to COVID infection: perhaps by affecting the immune system.
That is of course possible.
But think on this. Suppose there were NO causal correlation between Vitamin D and COVID infection. Would you expect these results?
Yes.
There is are two obvious non-direct causal relationships between low Vitamin D and COVID:
Deprivation => low vit D. (Combination of bad diet, less attention to supplementation, less time exercising outside)
Deprivation => high COVID infection (Many factors the biggest of which is higher density housing, with less ability to socially isolate, also less resources to isolate, also jobs more likely to be high contact)
Second one is even simpler:
higher age => Low vit D (well known, absorption & transformation to calcifediol becomes less efficient)
higher age => Higher COVID infection (less strong immune system from many known age-related reasons)
Since both these factors are known, and would give a positive corelation, finding such a positive correlation does not add to evidence for the "vitamin D protects from COVID" hypothesis.
This is a very obvious example of why we need to be so cautious about observational data. The indirect causal relationships can be much more subtle than this. Attempts to get rid of them using statistics will go wrong unless strong factors like age are very carefully controlled. RB's most recent "positive for HCQ" evidence was a particularly bad example of this where the HCQ and control groups were highly mismatched in age distribution, and age was banded, rather than being given as a continuous parameter, with the bands covering risks varying by a factor of 3 (10 years). That makes errors due to uncompensated age differences inevitable, even if the correct stats is done to compensate for differences in age. (In fact they did not give any details of the analysis, I will revise this statement if given them and they prove better than it appears now).
This whole thread has put a lot of store (too much) by observational evidence without (usually) analysing whether correlations noted in results are properly causal, or something else.
I am still positive on Vitamin D for COVID. There is a lot of evidence - even though much of the observational evidnece is not real as above, there is also some better quality evidence. But, the bias against Vitamin D is because so many people look at the correlations without the necessary understanding that they may not be real. Those who do have that understanding see the arguments fro Vit D based on poor evidence and are not convinced.
Regards,
THH
The full paper link: https://www.medrxiv.org/conten…09.09.20184143v1.full.pdf
Great stuff that only a pro pharma spin doctor can't like.
I had some other issues with the ways the stats were done (binning ages instead of using age as continuous parameter - though the details here are not made clear in the paper, if they has exact ages as well the could have used them as continuous variates in addition to the binning - however I think that unlikely. So, if this is the case, any results from this are unsafe because in these large bins the exact ages are critical to odds, and we know from the data that the age distributions are very different in the two cases that are compared..
May be you should read the details and spend some more time than 30'' with the paper. The HCQ group overall contained the more severe cases with much stronger symptoms, got less antibiotics, less steroids.
The only allowed conclusion is: Why did they not treat all patients the same way especially the older ones with age > 51? CoV-19 mortality (CF) in Saudi Arabia is low and without a more detailed mortality statistics we cannot make any conclusions.
Mortality strongly increases (up to 10x) between the group aged 65-75 and >75. But this is valid for central Europe only!
THH you fail to review all the reports I post and pick and choose taking points n the study's rather than looking at all the overall conclusions. I know this is just a game you play, it always is. Never satisfied, refusing to ever commit to anything positive always wanting more. In my world you'd be known as a shit starter. A couple of personal questions did you have a failed professional life and do you have any friends? Wait forget it . I DONT CARE!!!!
a more recent study on vitamin D deficenccy and covid from the University of Chicago
This study has exactly the same problems: correlation does not imply causation.
THH you fail to review all the reports I post and pick and choose taking points n the study's rather than looking at all the overall conclusions. I know this is just a game you play, it always is. Never satisfied, refusing to ever commit to anything positive always wanting more. In my world you'd be known as a shit starter. A couple of personal questions did you have a failed professional life and do you have any friends? Wait forget it . I DONT CARE!!!!
Do you have any evidence this is just a game I play, or that I am never satisfied?
You can surely see that given what I have said I'm not going to take any of this simple Vit D low <==> some bad thing evidence as causal without a lot of care from the researchers to argue they have controlled for all the factors that are obvious.
Some of the evidence is like that, and there is the RCT that I like. Also there is genuine evidence that very low Vit d causes issues.
If you want me to shut up on this thread whenever people postings as evidence that are not evidence, I will. But surely that is dishonest? And also no help to those who have not considered the ways in which observational data can be interpreted.
If i don't post on every single observational evidence study that does not really indicate much it is because I don't have time and also would find it boring.
The observational data can still be indicative of things that are interesting, so it is worth reading, with care.
I DONT CARE!!!!
A joke I made with my teenage daughter.
who went thru the "I don't care" phase
There's a shop called IKEA
Imagine how many customers they would get if it was called Idon'tKEA.
Some of the evidence is like that, and there is the RCT that I like.
The only reason pharma does double blind placebo or new against "standard drug" (RCT) studies is the agreement that they get a golden bullet.
It is easy to show that 99.9% of these RCT studies have severe deficiencies as almost any time at least half of the population is excluded. Further the required sub division in etnies (typical gen pools) is usually not done. Further we know that fat people have a much larger difference in metabolism compare to normal weight people as there are differences between etnies! The same holds for children, pregnant woman and others that do a lot of sport. From pharma kinetics we know that not only the LD 50 factor is day time dependent. The intake time/split of dose/ carrier of the drug etc. of medicaments plays a crucial role too etc.. Even what you eat.
If you had to cover the whole possible parameter space you would end up with a trial that requires several 100'000 people...
The best documented sample RCT to only make golden bullet money is Lucentis of Novartis for treating the wet macula. Novartis bought the rights to use Avastin from Roche and simply renamed it. To be fair you cannot get a patent for a renamed drug. So Novartis minimally changed a completely unimportant side chain of Avastin. So no surprise the RCT did show identical results for both (Difference +:-1% what in average is less than what you get if you do a (2!) study with identical drugs...)
So asking for an RCT is a business issue and not at all a guarantee that a drug will work: See Viox, Contergan, Statines,Opioides etc..
In my opinion all drugs/vaccines must be supervised in full detail during the whole live time ( of the drug) . And the price should in no way be related to an RCT. It should only depend on the quality you gain compared to the actual standard.
The RCT for V-D is here since more than ten years. So we only can notice that the RCT also holds for CoV-19. The surprise is that for CoV-19 V-D can save your live - not just make it a bit better!
