Display MoreWashington Times
"A recent Stanford University antibody study estimated the fatality rate from the virus is likely 0.1% to 0.2%. The World Health Organization (WHO) had estimated that the death rate was 20 to 30 times higher and called for isolation policies. On which version do you think the media focused?"
https://www.washingtontimes.co…-huge-hoax-perpetrated-b/
Oooh, oooh, oooh, I know Mr. Kotter,
call on me.
Is 'genetic drift' the same as mutation rate or is this a term the NY times has just made up like a lot of other fake news?
The New York Times does not make up fake news. Not a lot, and not a little. They would be held to account if they did. They always interview and then quote nationally recognized, distinguished experts about important subjects like this. If they made up news, or if they put words in the mouths of these experts, or distorted what the expert said, the experts would complain. Everyone would hear about it. When the Times makes an honest mistake, everyone hears about it within a few days.
With regard to cold fusion, the Times got the story completely wrong. They published a bunch of blatant lies. But, these lies were put out by nationally recognized, distinguished experts. So you really can't blame the Times for believing them. I do blame them because they never interviewed or quoted the experts on our side, such as Fleischmann or Bockris. But by the time the story was a few months old, their reputations were in shreds. The Times does not interview people who the experts say are criminals, lunatics and frauds. The Times is very conservative.
The New York Times does not make up fake news. Not a lot, and not a little. They would be held to account if they did. They always interview and then quote nationally recognized, distinguished experts about important subjects like this. If they made up news, or if they put words in the mouths of these experts, or distorted what the expert said, the experts would complain. Everyone would hear about it. When the Times makes an honest mistake, everyone hears about it within a few days.
I believe that is a bit of a stretch. IMO, it will not help your argument, and may in fact hurt it.
I believe that is a bit of a stretch. IMO, it will not help your argument, and may in fact hurt it.
Some people have been “plugged into the Matrix” for to long Shane, remember, it is much easier to fool someone than it is to convince them they have been fooled,
and you will never convo be him
The New York Times does not make up fake news. Not a lot, and not a little. They would be held to account if they did.
The NY Times has good articles on many things. But on some important topics they are pure crafted propaganda. You just don't know how it works so you are oblivious to it.
The two papers that are critical to democracy management NY Times and Washington Post. In terms of accountability the people who own the country own the papers.
Proof that people close to the president are in a deep-state war. More HCQ coverage.
https://www.palmerfoundation.c…s-as-it-happens-timeline/
President Trump is flooded with information. If you think he just gets up an rants about an unproven drug.
I think he's a loudmouth and attention seeking. But there is a real positive force pushing him to fight the deep state.
Most Americans don't get the war that's in happening in their own country.
Display MoreProof that people close to the president are in a deep-state war. More HCQ coverage.
https://www.palmerfoundation.c…s-as-it-happens-timeline/
President Trump is flooded with information. If you think he just gets up an rants about an unproven drug.
I think he's a loudmouth and attention seeking. But there is a real positive force pushing him to fight the deep state.
Most Americans don't get the war that's in happening in their own country.
The war in our country is between Fox News and CNN/MSNBC. Half the country watches one network and the other half watches one of the other two. Our country is split in two tribes. The divide is so deep that literally everything runs through this lens. There was a time when it wasn’t this way. But it was a long time ago.
5-fluorouracil
Two new preprints showing favorable HCQ results
Preliminary evidence from a multicenter prospective observational study of
the safety and efficacy of chloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19
https://www.medrxiv.org/conten…101/2020.04.26.20081059v1
Early Hydroxychloroquine Is Associated with an Increase of Survival in
COVID-19 Patients: An Observational Study
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202005.0057/v1
Some additional preprints that may be of interest to those who enjoy reading --
Hydroxychloroquine as an Aerosol Might Markedly Reduce and Even Prevent
Severe Clinical Symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 Infection
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0090/v1
Evaluation of Traditional Ayurvedic Preparation for Prevention and Management
of the Novel Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) Using Molecular Docking Approach
(Lists of common polyphenols with good anti-Covid docking energies are at
Table 1[pp.25-6], Table 6[pp.39-40],Table 7[pp.40-1]... Water solubility,
intestinal absorption, and toxicities listed in last table on pp.86-7)
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws…__SARS-CoV-2__Usin_v2.pdf
Also, evidence that SARS-Cov-2 had human help in attaining its virulence (starts at time 14:00 of this video) --
Coronavirus: Are Our Scientists Lying To Us?
Feline coronavirus drug inhibits the main protease of SARS-CoV-2 and blocks virus replication
https://www.biorxiv.org/conten…0.05.03.073080v1.full.pdf
Combined Deep Learning and Molecular Docking Simulations Approach Identifies
Potentially Effective FDA Approved Drugs for Repurposing Against SARS-CoV-2
The war in our country is between Fox News and CNN/MSNBC. Half the country watches one network and the other half watches one of the other two. Our country is split in two tribes. The divide is so deep that literally everything runs through this lens. There was a time when it wasn’t this way. But it was a long time ago.
Nobody can doubt that we have two theatre troupes who battle it out. One side holds up the "left" (liberalism) and the other "right" (conservatism). In truth, they are theatre troupes. What did Bush say about Clinton? See here.
Somebody asked me what do we do? Realize the media is a propaganda outlet that is there to raise your blood pressure and engage you in useless debates. Realize the left/right or CNN/FOX or any other division is intended to divide.
And what do they do if they don't have an enemy to distract us? They make one up and serve it to us for us.
What can you do? Wake other people up? The craftsmanship is masterful so most people can't see it!
Display MoreYou missed the latest Wuhan paper that Robert linked. HCQ is highly significant working also for ICU cases.
May be you missed the news in February. China did order some 3 mio. doses of HCQ in Taiwan. Novartis did spend > 100 mio. dose to USA some weeks ago. The only problem is the health mafia (Leader of the pack is Giliead) that block the hospital doctors from using it. I hope one day enough people will find together to sue the pack.
But really I do not think that you ever had the intention to analyze the rhetoric & facts of any HCQ dilution paper paid/written by Gillead agents.
Gillead is the outmost greedy pharma company on the planet as it sells the Hepatitis C cure for 40'000 bucks. This is 1000x above costs and at least 10..1000x above a similarly rated cure with other live critical medication. if we would use the Gillead arguments for Antibiotics, then we all - with an income less than 100'000k/year - would die.
I'm just not interested in the Gilead-bashing. FWIW - my personal view on Remdesivir is that it does something (good) is pretty toxic (bad) and does not do very much. It will maybe form part of a drug cocktail that is properly effective and safe. Eventually. Or maybe not.
China ordering HCQ in Feb is irrelevant (just as Trump advocatiung it is). They have no better info than is published AFAIK. They also use vast amounts of TCM, on very poor evidence. Not that these drugs hare inactive, there is biochemistry supporting TCM (artemisin etc) and HCQ, and many many other drugs.
Please link the Wuhan trial you meant?
My own views on HCQ have varied:
Initially interested - mainly positive - by highly skeptical (Raoult)
Enthusiastic (this Feb 28 Wuhan paper)
Back to slightly lower than initial state when I found out:
(1) Wuhan study paper contains 60 fewer patients than originally specified, with no reason given
(2) Wuhan study only shows efficacy on a secondary measure not originally used in the test
Those things make RCT results contaminated, just as non-RCT results are highly unreliable.
I have not forgotten that paper, just taking to heart what a reading of the initial trial registration said about it and how it does not conform to that.
Since then I've continued to get less optimistic. I reckoned if HCQ was obviously good the large numbers of anecdotes supporting it from NY hospitals would be overwhelming. The neutral or slightly negative evidence since means this is unlikely to be the excellent drug that many here think it must be.
THH
Please link the Wuhan trial you meant?
https://www.medrxiv.org/conten…04.27.20073379v1.full.pdf
Third time this has been posted ... for THH.. do your own p test..
The proportions for mortality are 9/48 with HCQ... 238/520 no HCQ..
stated p value is < 0,001
which compares favourably with the latest Gilead test p value of P>0.05 for remdesivir(for which there is no full data)
Nobody can doubt that we have two theatre troupes who battle it out. One side holds up the "left" (liberalism) and the other "right" (conservatism). In truth, they are theatre troupes. What did Bush say about Clinton? See here.
Somebody asked me what do we do? Realize the media is a propaganda outlet that is there to raise your blood pressure and engage you in useless debates. Realize the left/right or CNN/FOX or any other division is intended to divide.
And what do they do if they don't have an enemy to distract us? They make one up and serve it to us for us.
What can you do? Wake other people up? The craftsmanship is masterful so most people can't see it!
My advice would be not to bring such strong feelings and expectations (enemy, masterful craftmanship) to the party. Just realise that people are human and we are all fallible. Politicians looking at science particularly fallible since usually they cannot judge for themselves: in general science does not give clear-cut answers to questions, it is a process of enquiry, not a set of infallible edicts. And scientists are just as susceptible to personal bias, mistake, the difference is that (if professional) they know this happens and offer opinions with due humility.
In the COVID crisis the NZ PM and Merkel, both of whom seem to have done well, have the advantage of scientific training.
https://www.medrxiv.org/conten…04.27.20073379v1.full.pdf
Thanks for that. I'm reading the May 1st revision (when it was 1st posted), that is very recent so (1) I can perhaps be forgiven for not noticing it) (2) it is outwith the FSAB study timeframe.
So it recalibrates my position on HCQ back to positive and optimistic but wanting more info.
Why?
(1) The IL6 results - much lower IL6 while taking HCQ, increase when stopped - are significant and relevant. That would seem helpful in reducing cytokine storm but also might be unhelpful in reducing immune response, so the details here matter and I hope immunology guys look properly at this and all other info. The key issue not controlled here but would be interesting to know is when does the HCQ start.
(2) The results in terms of mortality and time in hospital are strong and positive. Particularly the mortality figures are extraordinarily strong, even with only 48 HCQ patients, because overall mortality is so high.
(3) The cohort balance is interesting. Various things here:
(1) statistical correction for age (without more detail) does not help and might hinder, see below.
(2) the age average (68) is identical for the two groups. A bit surprising if there is no selection of data here as we need. But not impossible by chance
(3) comorbidities are significantly biassed. The HCQ patients have lower uncommon comorbidities than the non-HCQ, balanced by slightly higher common comorbidity (diabetes):
Hypertension (%) 252 (44.4) 23 (47.9) 229 (44.0) 0.605
Coronary heart disease (%) 59 (10.4) 2 (4.2) 57 (11.0) 0.213
COPD (%) 16 (2.8) 0 (0) 16 (3.1) 0.384
Diabetes (%) 97 (17.1) 12 (25.0) 85 (16.3) 0.127
The HCQ patients have more over 60 patients than non-HCQ but matched mean age. It looks as though any differences here are not statistically significant, but it is a bit weird that mean ages match: selection to make this happen might have unintended consequences.
That all makes sense of HCQ is given to a subset of patients with lower heart disease & COPD but balanced in other ways. This was all at one hospital so there would likely have been some criteria for who was / was not given HCQ. We are not told what this was and that is unfortunate. You could imagine criteria that would completely nullify these results.
So: overall, positive, in a space where we do not yet have much info. Unless there is some source of bias not obvious from these results (and perhaps determined from the not specified HCQ / non-HCQ selection criteria) this is very strong positive info. That "source of bias not obvious" is a big caveat because surely the authors of this study could have been more forthcoming about what were the selection criteria, what were the criteria for giving HCQ, etc.
THH
The clear cut answer is in the in vitro biochemistry of the Wang et al and Gordon et al massive Nature articlle, showing the elimination of the virus at micromolar levels in a dose dependent way by chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine. The clinical studies now just have to catch up with this initial 'olive branch'' breakthrough, ie we were given the opportunity to defeat this pandemic early on with a highly effective, safe antiviral but have failed miserably in doing so. I' m really worried about India now because with their caste system only the higher echelons will have CQ treatment. The African states seem to be safe so far with their already widespread antivira/antimalariall use. Ivemectin too. As is Greece and Papua New Guinea.
the NZ PM and Merkel,
Ardern did communications science / political science... Merkel did physics..
both probably should defer to medical/epidemiological experts for Covid strategy/policy..
definitely Ardern did..
Ardern did communications science / political science... Merkel did physics..
both probably should defer to medical/epidemiological experts for Covid strategy/policy..
definitely Ardern did..
Yes. For some reason I thought Ardern had science qualifications: not sure politics counts though I guess they would claim its academic study requires critical thinking.
It is not about whether they are medical experts. It is about whether they have a scientific attitude in which case they will defer to no authority, but also know that they themselves have limited expertise and respect those who do have expertise and show it giving detailed explanations and response to critiques. If you know that to begin to understand a subject properly you need a 6 months Literature Survey you do not favour cherry-picked iconoclastic blogs over experts. Equally you know that all experts have limitations and that often (especially in medicine) not enough is known to have definite conclusions.
The clear cut answer is in the in vitro biochemistry of the Wang et al and Gordon et al massive Nature articlle, showing the elimination of the virus at micromolar levels in a dose dependent way by chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine. The clinical studies now just have to catch up with this initial 'olive branch'' breakthrough, ie we were given the opportunity to defeat this pandemic early on with a highly effective, safe antiviral but have failed miserably in doing so. I' m really worried about India now because with their caste system only the higher echelons will have CQ treatment. The African states seem to be safe so far with their already widespread antivira/antimalariall use. Ivemectin too. As is Greece and Papua New Guinea.
I'm just not interested in the Gilead-bashing. FWIW - my personal view on Remdesivir is that it does something (good) is pretty toxic (bad) and does not do very much. It will maybe form part of a drug cocktail that is properly effective and safe. Eventually. Or maybe not.
Today Japanese NHK news: Japan researchers confirm the Australian study about Ivermectin being the most effective side effect free treatment. Ivermectin reduces the blood virus count by a factor of 5000 within 48 hours. They also confirm that HCQ given early is enough to block virus cell entry.
Africa uses about 3 billion dose of Ivermectin a year what might be the main reason for the low infection/death rate. The Ivermectin price in Africa is a few dollars a dose ore even less if sponsored by WHO. Ivermectin is the most valuable drug because it also blocks the entry of RNA into DNA and thus the virus cannot hide in a cell.
We can simply say that doctors knowing this and not using/prescribing Ivermectin or a similar (to serious/critical patients) are willful killers.
The Japanese also do confirm (effectively complain about) the outrageous inhuman behavior of Gillead that tries to promote a more or less useless drug to fight for you live.
