Covid-19 News

Quote from Navid

But labeling people conspiracy theorists is the same as us labeling you an old fool - not very nice.

If ya don't like being called a conspiracy theorist, then stop being a conspiracy theorist!

Also, after watching your TedX video, I notice that Sharyl Attkisson appears to be eminently qualified to discuss 'fake news'. That is, according to Snopes, at least:

https://www.snopes.com/news/20…ess-view-vaccines-autism/

ETA, some other interesting articles on the theme of disinformation:

Half of Fox News viewers believe Bill Gates is trying to use the virus outbreak to inject you with a microchip:

https://www.cnet.com/news/over…es-to-implant-microchips/

A new study has found that bots may account for 45-60% of Twitter accounts discussing covid-19. Many of those accounts were created in February and have since been spreading false medical advice, conspiracy theories about the virus, and pushing for the reopening America:

https://www.technologyreview.c…s-push-to-reopen-america/

One way to judge the level of distortion in news is the ratio between the length of the pro-conspiracy summary and the length of a full investigation of the matter. It is very easy to prove almost anything by leaving stuff out.

In Zeus's excellent link above https://www.snopes.com/news/20…ess-view-vaccines-autism/ the full fact check is 20X longer than the conspiracy theory.

Read the Sharyl summary, it seems damning, and would turn anyone into an antivax sympathiser with conspiracy antenna fully extended. Read the context and it seems interesting but a storm in a teacup.

This post, on this thread, is not entirely OT. It shows how easy it is to suggest causal relationships between drugs and effects, but also how easy it is for such suggestions to be wrong. Vaccine adverse events (which do of course exist) are a great source of these issues, where the full might of the US legal system is harnessed to try to show such causal relationships (for obvious financial reason). The difficulty we have here interpreting whether HCQ etc studies indicate causal effect is much worse when it comes to finding obscure and low probability vaccine side effects. You can never rule out some interesting association between vaccination and the exacerbation of some rare condition. Just as you can never rule out some new interaction between a common drug and some rare condition. So it is right that doctors everywhere should be on the lookout for such possibilities. But not right that anyone jumps to conclusions.

Here is a perspective article (Vaccines and Autism Revisited 2008) looking at how legally potential links between adverse events and vaccination have been dealt with and covering in medical detail the Sharyl factoid.

Note to those reading: the arguments do not prove that no causal links between vaccination and development of mitochondrial disorders that trigger Autism. Causal links can never be disproven. They can only be shown to look unlikely.

Months later, with delays in neurologic and psychological development, Hannah was diagnosed with encephalopathy caused by a mitochondrial enzyme deficit. Hannah's signs included problems with language, communication, and behavior — all features of autism spectrum disorder. Although it is not unusual for children with mitochondrial enzyme deficiencies to develop neurologic signs between their first and second years of life, Hannah's parents believed that vaccines had triggered her encephalopathy. They sued the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for compensation under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) and won.

The Poling case is best understood in the context of the decision-making process of this unusual vaccine court. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, American lawyers successfully sued pharmaceutical companies claiming that vaccines caused a variety of illnesses, including unexplained coma, sudden infant death syndrome, Reye's syndrome, transverse myelitis, mental retardation, and epilepsy. By 1986, all but one manufacturer of the diphtheria–tetanus–pertussis vaccine had left the market. The federal government stepped in, passing the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which included the creation of the VICP. Funded by a federal excise tax on each dose of vaccine, the VICP compiled a list of compensable injuries. If scientific studies supported the notion that vaccines caused an adverse event — such as thrombocytopenia after receipt of measles-containing vaccine or paralysis after receipt of oral polio vaccine — children and their families were compensated quickly, generously, and fairly. The number of lawsuits against vaccine makers decreased dramatically.

No case, however, represented a greater deviation from the VICP's original standards than that of Dorothy Werderitsh, who in 2006 successfully claimed that a hepatitis B vaccine had caused her multiple sclerosis. By the time of the ruling, several studies had shown that hepatitis B vaccine neither caused nor exacerbated the disease, and the Institute of Medicine had concluded that “evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between hepatitis B vaccine and multiple sclerosis.”2 But the VICP was less impressed with the scientific literature than it was with an expert's proposal of a mechanism by which hepatitis B vaccine could induce autoimmunity (an ironic conclusion, given that Dorothy Werderitsh never had a detectable immune response to the vaccine).

Like the Werderitsh decision, the VICP's concession to Hannah Poling was poorly reasoned.

First, whereas it is clear that natural infections can exacerbate symptoms of encephalopathy in patients with mitochondrial enzyme deficiencies, no clear evidence exists that vaccines cause similar exacerbations. Indeed, because children with such deficiencies are particularly susceptible to infections, it is recommended that they receive all vaccines.

Second, the belief that the administration of multiple vaccines can overwhelm or weaken the immune system of a susceptible child is at variance with the number of immunologic components contained in modern vaccines. A century ago, children received one vaccine, smallpox, which contained about 200 structural and nonstructural viral proteins. Today, thanks to advances in protein purification and recombinant DNA technology, the 14 vaccines given to young children contain a total of about 150 immunologic components.3

Third, although experts testifying on behalf of the Polings could reasonably argue that development of fever and a varicella-vaccine rash after the administration of nine vaccines was enough to stress a child with mitochondrial enzyme deficiency, Hannah had other immunologic challenges that were not related to vaccines. She had frequent episodes of fever and otitis media, eventually necessitating placement of bilateral polyethylene tubes. Nor is such a medical history unusual. Children typically have four to six febrile illnesses each year during their first few years of life; vaccines are a minuscule contributor to this antigenic challenge.

Fourth, without data that clearly exonerate vaccines, it could be argued that children with mitochondrial enzyme deficiencies might have a lower risk of exacerbations if vaccines were withheld, delayed, or separated. But such changes would come at a price. Even spacing out vaccinations would increase the period during which children were susceptible to natural infections, giving a theoretical risk from vaccines priority over a known risk from vaccine-preventable diseases. These diseases aren't merely historical: pneumococcus, varicella, and pertussis are still common in the United States. Recent measles outbreaks in California, Arizona, and Wisconsin among children whose parents had chosen not to vaccinate them show the real risks of public distrust of immunization.

Quote from JedRothwell

If one of the test subjects dies, it will be tragic, but it will be a necessary sacrifice for the good of humanity.

The rotary folks will like you: They save about 5'000$/person if volunteers can be found: I would ask for kick-back....

Quote from oldguy

Breakthrough Drug: Ivermectin Shows 'Astounding' Results Against Coronavirus

some 250 coronavirus patients were involved in the Broward trial. The results were dramatic, with “statistically significant improvement in mortality,” according to the source.

The blood oxygen level of the first patient treated in early April was 70%, and dropped to just 50% within hours. After receiving the invermectin, the patient stabilized within 24 hours and was discharged from the hospital in one week.

We know it since more than a month ! But believe me this will not bother an US hospital doctor as these first need a convincing phone call from a mafia daddy (CDC,FDA,deep state...)

Quote from Zeus46

Half of Fox News viewers believe Bill Gates is trying to use the virus outbreak to inject you with a microchip:

The fact is: Microsoft promotes this chip for advanced security like personal ID (=legally valid etc.). May be you should be alert that not a single company makes this mandatory!

Quote from THHuxleynew

It shows how easy it is to suggest causal relationships between drugs and effects, but also how easy it is for such suggestions to be wrong.

This also happened for Statins (for high blood LDL) in a self deception way. After one year 30% success, but after 5 years no success after 10 years widespread damage.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Note to those reading: the arguments do not prove that no causal links between vaccination and development of mitochondrial disorders that trigger Autism. Causal links can never be disproven. They can only be shown to look unlikely.

Exactly true: The truth is dependent on when you know what. See Statin case. Thus a todays conspiracy (e.g. 9/11) can be the accepted truth of tomorrow as historian can not be bought a 100 years in advance. Other way round see Statin story. And the same can happen to a vaccine. It can save your live today but may be kill you in 10 years due to a new weakness. We just don't know!

Re Ivermectin effectiveness:

Quote from Wyttenbach

We know it since more than a month !

The thing is, we don't know it. We hope, just like we did with HCQ. None of the evidence yet for Ivermectin is strong. It is for me a better bet than HCQ simply because we do not have a large number of negative results (which HCQ had from the start, with a few eye-watering positives). For example: The blood oxygen level of the first patient treated in early April was 70%, and dropped to just 50% within hours. After receiving the invermectin, the patient stabilized within 24 hours and was discharged from the hospital in one week is so clearly anecdotal that it means absolutely nothing except "worth looking more here".

Nevertheless I'm happy to go on hoping for now, but won't take horse worming pills!

On the topic of in vivo results:

https://xkcd.com/1217/

Quote from THHuxleynew

Nevertheless I'm happy to go on hoping for now, but won't take horse worming pills!

That's the shame! Horses and cattle do get it every year at least. In Egypts they get it quite often/year if they work with contaminated water (river blindness). In the US the victims of Lemblia/Giardina (endemic in some regions are very good patients - a lot of money to generate ... Of course they don't get it. (The old Indians used golden seal as a cure!)

Quote from Wyttenbach

The fact is: Microsoft promotes this chip for advanced security like personal ID (=legally valid etc.). May be you should be alter that not a single company makes this mandatory!

Do you have a link to any evidence suggesting that Microsoft / ID2020 are planning to implant microchips please?

Tried searching but only getting hits from Snopes again.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/microsoft-own-patent-666/

Quote from andrea.s

The many people who argue here about the overreportinģ of Covid-19 deaths should be enthusiastic about the policy in Russia

Just an obvious but it seems often ignored point. What matter, when judging a country's stress, is deaths per million population, not absolute deaths.

On that scale the US (300) is thus far only half as bad as the "bad" parts of Europe (500-600). Though much higher than the "good" parts of Europe (50-200).

It is therefore all to play for. The "bad" parts of Europe have had their epidemic peaks and are down at 10X lower or more infection level than at the peak. Of course they may if not careful get second wave peaks. But the US has not obviously past its 1st wave peak: figures are dominated by a few places like NY that are past a first wave peak, but more of the country has much lower incidence and I'm not clear that cases are falling from peak values. So not fair to compare US deaths now with "bad Europe" deaths.

Large multi-national analysis (n=96,032) finds decreased in-hospital survival rates and increased ventricular arrhythmias when using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without macrolide treatment for COVID-19 Hydroxychloroquine was associated with a 34% increase in death and a 137% increase in serious heart arrhythmias. Hydroxychloroquine and macrolide (e.g. azithromycin) was even worse

Unfortunately there weren't 96k participants as one may guess. 81k of the patients were in the control group and didn't get any of the known drug combos. Guess why: because their symptoms were found so mild so that they didn't require any intervention. One can imagine the results, after then: nearly every medicine would worsen the outcome in its consequences - and it actually did.. The fact that the control group differs greatly on a number of demographics calls for itself (yellow and whites have much higher survival rates on Covid-19). With 16K enrolled and a matching cohort of 81k, these data is pretty solid.

What this study actually did was run a propensity score match to try and pair up each patient in the treatment group with another patient in the control group who would mathematically be expected to have a similar risk of death/arrhythmia. This, of course, assumes that their chosen metrics provide 100% coverage of causes of death/arrhythmia. But the article stated: "The patients were well matched, with standardised mean difference estimates of less than 10% for all matched parameters. Each patient matched on the propensity score with less than 10% difference."

The problem is when you match with propensity scores, there is less total variation in the data. So then if there is still some unobserved characteristics driving things, they will make up a bigger share of the remaining variation. As a result your specification will end MORE biased than just using ordinary least squares. This is also why authors of study recommend that a prospective randomized trial be conducted, because it's susceptible to the collider bias. If you would restrain HCQ to the most serious cases only, you'll find soon, that these cases also have highest mortality and prevalence of another complications in general.

Quote from THHuxleynew

The "bad" parts of Europe have had their epidemic peaks and are down at 10X lower or more infection level than at the peak.

https://github.com/openZH/covi…ahlen_Kanton_ZH_total.csv look at cumulated cases fist visible row

ZH: The research & finance center of Switzerland now for two weeks is below 6 new cases/day (1.4 mio. people) despite almost no lockdown is happening. Shops stopped counting people only restaurants have to place tables at 2 meters and Saunas !! & universities are still closed... We have 50 critical ICU cases remaining in whole Switzerland... (4 in ZH)

It will be exciting to see what happens during the next easing steps. Mask prices are still criminal. 6 months ago you could buy 10 masks in the Japanese 100-Yen shop ! That is 10 cents/piece. Just to give you an impression how much money some criminals do draw.

Quote from THHuxleynew

One way to judge the level of distortion in news is the ratio between the length of the pro-conspiracy summary and the length of a full investigation of the matter. It is very easy to prove almost anything by leaving stuff out.

In Zeus's excellent link above https://www.snopes.com/news/20…ess-view-vaccines-autism/ the full fact check is 20X longer than the conspiracy theory.

Read the Sharyl summary, it seems damning, and would turn anyone into an antivax sympathiser with conspiracy antenna fully extended. Read the context and it seems interesting but a storm in a teacup.

This post, on this thread, is not entirely OT. It shows how easy it is to suggest causal relationships between drugs and effects, but also how easy it is for such suggestions to be wrong. Vaccine adverse events (which do of course exist) are a great source of these issues, where the full might of the US legal system is harnessed to try to show such causal relationships (for obvious financial reason). The difficulty we have here interpreting whether HCQ etc studies indicate causal effect is much worse when it comes to finding obscure and low probability vaccine side effects. You can never rule out some interesting association between vaccination and the exacerbation of some rare condition. Just as you can never rule out some new interaction between a common drug and some rare condition. So it is right that doctors everywhere should be on the lookout for such possibilities. But not right that anyone jumps to conclusions.

Here is a perspective article (Vaccines and Autism Revisited 2008) looking at how legally potential links between adverse events and vaccination have been dealt with and covering in medical detail the Sharyl factoid.

Note to those reading: the arguments do not prove that no causal links between vaccination and development of mitochondrial disorders that trigger Autism. Causal links can never be disproven. They can only be shown to look unlikely.

Months later, with delays in neurologic and psychological development, Hannah was diagnosed with encephalopathy caused by a mitochondrial enzyme deficit. Hannah's signs included problems with language, communication, and behavior — all features of autism spectrum disorder. Although it is not unusual for children with mitochondrial enzyme deficiencies to develop neurologic signs between their first and second years of life, Hannah's parents believed that vaccines had triggered her encephalopathy. They sued the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for compensation under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) and won.

The Poling case is best understood in the context of the decision-making process of this unusual vaccine court. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, American lawyers successfully sued pharmaceutical companies claiming that vaccines caused a variety of illnesses, including unexplained coma, sudden infant death syndrome, Reye's syndrome, transverse myelitis, mental retardation, and epilepsy. By 1986, all but one manufacturer of the diphtheria–tetanus–pertussis vaccine had left the market. The federal government stepped in, passing the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which included the creation of the VICP. Funded by a federal excise tax on each dose of vaccine, the VICP compiled a list of compensable injuries. If scientific studies supported the notion that vaccines caused an adverse event — such as thrombocytopenia after receipt of measles-containing vaccine or paralysis after receipt of oral polio vaccine — children and their families were compensated quickly, generously, and fairly. The number of lawsuits against vaccine makers decreased dramatically.

No case, however, represented a greater deviation from the VICP's original standards than that of Dorothy Werderitsh, who in 2006 successfully claimed that a hepatitis B vaccine had caused her multiple sclerosis. By the time of the ruling, several studies had shown that hepatitis B vaccine neither caused nor exacerbated the disease, and the Institute of Medicine had concluded that “evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between hepatitis B vaccine and multiple sclerosis.”2 But the VICP was less impressed with the scientific literature than it was with an expert's proposal of a mechanism by which hepatitis B vaccine could induce autoimmunity (an ironic conclusion, given that Dorothy Werderitsh never had a detectable immune response to the vaccine).

Like the Werderitsh decision, the VICP's concession to Hannah Poling was poorly reasoned.

First, whereas it is clear that natural infections can exacerbate symptoms of encephalopathy in patients with mitochondrial enzyme deficiencies, no clear evidence exists that vaccines cause similar exacerbations. Indeed, because children with such deficiencies are particularly susceptible to infections, it is recommended that they receive all vaccines.

Second, the belief that the administration of multiple vaccines can overwhelm or weaken the immune system of a susceptible child is at variance with the number of immunologic components contained in modern vaccines. A century ago, children received one vaccine, smallpox, which contained about 200 structural and nonstructural viral proteins. Today, thanks to advances in protein purification and recombinant DNA technology, the 14 vaccines given to young children contain a total of about 150 immunologic components.3

Third, although experts testifying on behalf of the Polings could reasonably argue that development of fever and a varicella-vaccine rash after the administration of nine vaccines was enough to stress a child with mitochondrial enzyme deficiency, Hannah had other immunologic challenges that were not related to vaccines. She had frequent episodes of fever and otitis media, eventually necessitating placement of bilateral polyethylene tubes. Nor is such a medical history unusual. Children typically have four to six febrile illnesses each year during their first few years of life; vaccines are a minuscule contributor to this antigenic challenge.

Fourth, without data that clearly exonerate vaccines, it could be argued that children with mitochondrial enzyme deficiencies might have a lower risk of exacerbations if vaccines were withheld, delayed, or separated. But such changes would come at a price. Even spacing out vaccinations would increase the period during which children were susceptible to natural infections, giving a theoretical risk from vaccines priority over a known risk from vaccine-preventable diseases. These diseases aren't merely historical: pneumococcus, varicella, and pertussis are still common in the United States. Recent measles outbreaks in California, Arizona, and Wisconsin among children whose parents had chosen not to vaccinate them show the real risks of public distrust of immunization.

Display More

TH,

Another way is to ignore CNN and Fox News

as they both have political agendas and exist only to counter each other.

Quote

Now, I am considering purchasing Ivermectin if I can find it

You can get it comfortably, once you're Chinese chick

Quote from stefan

Wouldn't it be better to be cool and implement case tracking Japan Style?

They should do that too. Develop a vaccine AND do case tracking. They are not mutually exclusive.

It turns out there is case tracking in Georgia. The Atlanta Journal reported today that the government now has about 250 people doing that, and they want to expand that to about 1,000 people. Good for them! There are about 700 new cases a day, so they need about more than 250 people. I have read estimates that the U.S. as a whole needs 150,000 to 300,000. That is with 20,000 to 30,000 new cases a day. That's ~8 people tracing cases per infection per day. That seem like a lot but I guess they are busy.

Quote from Zeus46

If ya don't like being called a conspiracy theorist, then stop being a conspiracy theorist!

Also, after watching your TedX video, I notice that Sharyl Attkisson appears to be eminently qualified to discuss 'fake news'. That is, according to Snopes, at least:

https://www.snopes.com/news/20…ess-view-vaccines-autism/

ETA, some other interesting articles on the theme of disinformation:

Half of Fox News viewers believe Bill Gates is trying to use the virus outbreak to inject you with a microchip:

https://www.cnet.com/news/over…es-to-implant-microchips/

A new study has found that bots may account for 45-60% of Twitter accounts discussing covid-19. Many of those accounts were created in February and have since been spreading false medical advice, conspiracy theories about the virus, and pushing for the reopening America:

https://www.technologyreview.c…s-push-to-reopen-america/

Display More

I thought you would have been so beaten down from the Polio thing you would have not resurfaced yet.

As mentioned, previously the OPV has cause 490,000 cases of paralysis in India. That is epic. Simple minds go "oh well, the benefit probably outweighs the harm because you know WHO is involved and you know I read it on Snopes!" Simple minds can be in power. For example, the US sanctions to Iraq caused them unable to purify water and treat sewage. Childhood mortality grew and disease grew. Remember, when Madeline Albright said the 500,000 deaths of children was worth it?

You drove yourself into a ditch and said the VAPP "it is correlation not causation." You can't take that back. You also don't have a clue what you are talking about wrt this complex disease. Read the next paper.

CDC admits that vaccine derived polio exists but they claim it is 200 cases per year. India - who is doing the surveillance - says it is 30,000+ a year. India scientists says that the best way to help the people is to stop giving them OPV. Zeus would call them conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers.

Have some self-respect and stop using Snopes as any proof of anything. Read some source papers and show us actual data.

Quote

Does anyone seriously think this study appearing in the highly prestigious Lancet (for more than a century one of the best medical journals in the world) does anyone think this is political?

Let me guess.. 'The Lancet' Has Gotten Really Weird from 2017, when it praised Karl Marx in a bizarre editorial. Umm, not actually weird these days - just liberally progressive...;-) B

We first noticed that something was strangely amiss in 2017 when the editor-in-chief of The Lancet praised Karl Marx in a bizarre editorial. The piece made multiple dubious claims, such as, "Medicine and Marxism have entangled, intimate, and respectable histories." The 100 million (or so) graves of the victims of communism beg to differ.

Then, in 2018, The Lancet went on an ideological bender against alcohol. First, it hyped a study that purportedly showed that every additional glass of alcohol above roughly 5 per week decreases a person's life expectancy by 15 to 30 minutes. Think about that for a minute. Many people around the world have a nightly glass of wine with dinner. In The Lancet's opinion, that's precisely two too many, and anyone who does that is slowly killing themselves.... Later that year, it published a study that declared that any alcohol whatsoever is bad for your health.

This year, the weirdness continued. A paper in The Lancet argued that certain food experts should be banned from food policy discussions because they are associated with industry. And then, The Lancet slandered surgeons, using shady statistics to blame them for killing millions of people every year. The study was so bad that our typically calm, cool, and collected Dr. Charles Dinerstein worried that his head would explode.

Big Pharma (which this journal serves) is primarily state capitalism thing - nothing enabled it to escalate profits and prices, like the public health insurance and the mandatory public money redistributed into it without public feedback, feedback of free market the less. This brings the Chinese mixture of private profit driven totalitarian socialism.

Quote from andrea.s

The many people who argue here about the overreportinģ of Covid-19 deaths should be enthusiastic about the policy in Russia, which was obviously set by Putin to be: "discard all deaths that exceed 1% of confirmed cases".

He likes round numbers. So do I!

Quote from JedRothwell

They should do that too. Develop a vaccine AND do case tracking. They are not mutually exclusive.

It turns out there is case tracking in Georgia. The Atlanta Journal reported today that the government now has about 250 people doing that, and they want to expand that to about 1,000 people. Good for them! There are about 700 new cases a day, so they need about more than 250 people. I have read estimates that the U.S. as a whole needs 150,000 to 300,000. That is with 20,000 to 30,000 new cases a day. That's ~8 people tracing cases per infection per day. That seem like a lot but I guess they are busy.

yea with cool I mean to make sure to take the time to make a safe vaccine. Hate to give the anti vaccers more fuel. Also you should lockdown untill the cases becomes so low so that tracking becomes practical.

Quote from JedRothwell

It turns out there is case tracking in Georgia. The Atlanta Journal reported today that the government now has about 250 people doing that, and they want to expand that to about 1,000 people.

Case tracking for ever ?? What is the idea behind this? Do it for the flue too ? It has always been done for AIDS, or Hepatitis C but they are a fraction as contagious as CoV-9 is.

Why not using simple medication in case somebody shines up with symptoms? How do you track 20x asymptotic cases that infect other 20x asymptotic cases and just 1 of 20 will be visible. You will loose all traces!! Case tracking is dead stupid nonsense as a general measure as it simply does not work as soon as 1 single asymptotic case occurs.

Countries like Japan, China will just face a never ending lock-down if they do not start to understand what really happens.

Quote from andrea.s

The many people who argue here about the overreportinģ of Covid-19 deaths should be enthusiastic about the policy in Russia, which was obviously set by Putin to be: "discard all deaths that exceed 1% of confirmed cases". https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/2…rus-cases-top-300000.html

Jump from window is the main official culprit of coronavirus death in Russia.