Covid-19 News

Just fact checking RB's extreme dislike of the internationally recognised and applauded UK RECOVERY trial (yes there are still some things we do right). RB said:

thousands of patients on 2400 mg/day is the Wreckovery study..

which incompetent pharmacist checked that dose....?? the routine dosing is 200-400 mg..

From the comments about that trial (more detail, agreeing with RB):

This article failed to mention that they used dangerous doses of HCQ. 2400mg in the first 24 hours and 9600mg in 10 days. Plenty of government agencies all over the world set the limit/day to 600mg. 4 times the limit

Malaria chock treatment is 800mg in the first day and 2000mg total in 48 hours. Because agencies know the half life of HCQ is 22 days.

The conclusion made is misguiding and should be changed.

But the thing is, a large initial dose is exactly expected given that the drug build up in the body over time, but for HCQ to be effective we all agree it should be started ASAP. The dosage tolerable over 10 days is much larger than the dosage tolerable over a longer period. See below for expert comment.

So RB (and the other guy) is comparing apples with pears. In fact the RECOVERY trial was upping the initial dose to give HCQ a chance and had they not done this RB et al would have pointed it out as a defect.

https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m2670

The high doses of hydroxychloroquine used in RECOVERY—800 mg at 0 and 6 hours followed by 400 mg at 12 hours and then every 12 hours for up to nine additional days—have raised concern among experts.

David Jayne, professor of clinical autoimmunity at Cambridge University, said that current recommended doses for rheumatologic disease are typically 300-400 mg/day and that the maximum dose for malaria has been 800 mg in the first 24 hours. “The reasons behind the dose selection in the RECOVERY trial are unclear,” he says. “Hydroxychloroquine overdose is associated with cardiovascular, neurological, and other toxicities, occurring with doses over 1500 mg, and higher doses are associated with fatality.” He is concerned that hydroxychloroquine toxicity may have contributed to the adverse outcomes and that conclusions based on these results may be unreliable.

Martin Landray, RECOVERY’s deputy chief investigator, says, “We did not choose these doses by accident. The dose comes from modelling by Nick White, professor of tropical medicine at the University of Oxford, and his team, who have extensive experience with this drug. They developed detailed pharmacokinetic models, considering the best way in which to rapidly achieve drug levels that might be high enough to kill the virus but not so high as to trigger toxicity. Their work has recently been published as a preprint on medRxiv.”

Quote from THHuxleynew

I've done a forward-citation search on the Ferguson article. No contrary comment yet.

https://scholar.google.com/sch…sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en

Now: perhaps W (immunity from prior CV infection) or Shane (not sure which mechanism) or anyone else (Stefan you have a view on this?) could comment on these arguments?

THH

Display More

I believe that due to the tcell immunity respons that maybe up to 3x the antibody results are immune and this indicates that you get a help of herd immunity in som countries and r0 gets negative with the help of some kind of lock down. Hence e.g london new york an stockholm may be easy to protect from a second wave. but you will have outbrakes in other parts of the countries i believe. The new surge in usa is mainly in states with low infection rate. indicates that it is easier to protect a country with 500 deaths per million than 100 deaths per million from further deaths. lots of unknown atm however.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I've been a bit surprised by the way that one not very convincing RCT is taken as strong evidence for Remdesivir. If it is correct, it will save hospitals bed occupancy, and patients or insurers money, a powerful motivation for hospitals.

It's all matter of communication = dominate the narrative: Gilead crap is believed to save you 3 hospital days... Why because the long time dying have been excluded from the study result = basic cheating.

If Remdesivir is given to somebody that will die then he will stay in average 9 days longer in ICU/ventilation and cost $$$$ more than without the Gilead crap. Now how can you decide who will go to die????

It simply is a criminal act to prolongate a live by 9 days without any chance of recovery just make the maximum amount of money.

THHuxleynew why are you still supporting an absolute ruthless company???

Quote from THHuxleynew

W - please comment on Fergusons's comment, and his detailed arguments.

Stefan already said it. Fergusons is totally wrong because about 70-80% of all people have a cross immunity from old (recent) corona infects. All these will not show any antibodies despite having some weak symptoms. This is also confirmed by many studies which show that a large percentage that show a low number of anti bodies will loose them after some months what is typical for a cross immunity where the main response is given by the old memory cells and only in case of under responding new (a few) immunity cell will being expressed .

We are outrageous lucky! That we had this great cross immunity. Without we would see between 10-30% death rates overall!

Quote from THHuxleynew

Martin Landray, RECOVERY’s deputy chief investigator, says, “We did not choose these doses by accident. The dose comes from modelling by Nick White, professor of tropical medicine at the University of Oxford, and his team, who have extensive experience with this drug. They developed detailed pharmacokinetic models, considering the best way in which to rapidly achieve drug levels that might be high enough to kill the virus but not so high as to trigger toxicity. Their work has recently been published as a preprint on medRxiv.”

This looks like Nazi medicine. Killing people based on a model.

Quote from THHuxleynew

On fact checking websites.

If you have any interest in truth, as something different from personal opinion, you will realise that while most things (including a lot of medicine and some science) are matters of opinion as well as fact, there are differences between those reporters who try to provide true statements, and do not seek to persuade with emotive words, and those at the other end of the spectrum who do the reverse.

In particular, there are many clever people around, and many publishers, who will argue opinions that are very tendentious by making false statements.

It is not easy to feret out whether statements are true or false reading them. I am often convinced by Navid's favoured conspiracy links, until I check myself on the details. Then I discover facts misrepreseted or just made up. Actually, one element of this, the personalisation and use of emotive memes, is obvious on first reading. But whether the facts that back up these memes exist or are distorted / fabricated needs more work than we usually have time for.

Hence it is always worth rating comments according to how you trust where they are published. RB here does not trust the Lancet due to certain controversial matters about its editor. Many (left or right) will note publications with political bias that are weak on factual reporting.

Fact checking websites (there are many) try to rate sites according to political slant (whether you think this biased or not depends on your politics, so I tend to view mild left-leaning is non-biassed, others would not), and the way they do reporting.

Politics is sort of not the point since we are all biased. But a tendency to use emotive words and publish unverifiable statements as facts, or question or contradict verifiable facts, is something we can all agree independent of bias.

Navid criticises one fact-checking website as below:

Fact checking websites exploded since Trump. One investigation found that various ones (Snopes, Politifact) they were run by these people:

• A gamer.
• A leftist, Trump-hating, feminist professor who specializes in “fat studies.”
• A sex-and-fetish blogger.
• A health-industry worker.
• Organizations with billionaire Democratic Party activists and donors.
• And another guy who went to extreme lengths to conceal his identity.

We have a duty to protect the vulnerable (including possibly administrators who may not understand how this works).suggesting we give up our thinking to a website. In this case Media Bias Fact Check, and the owner Van Zandt. If you want to outsource your thinking to him, please do but dont get on the internet and try to use this site to discredit and spew controversy to malign other websites or opinions that may not be favorable to your objectives.

“[I]t turns out Van Zandt has a vindictive streak. After one hapless social media user tried to use his phony ‘Media Bias Fact Check’ site to dispute a thoroughly sourced article from this site, Daily News Bin, we made the mistake of contacting Van Zandt and asking him to take down his ridiculous ‘rating’ – which consisted of nothing more than hearsay such as ‘has been accused of being satire.’ Really? When? By whom? None of those facts seem to matter to the guy running this ‘Media Bias Fact Check’ scam.

“But instead of acknowledging that he’d been caught in the act, Van Zandt retaliated against Daily News Bin by changing his rating to something more sinister. He also added a link to a similar phony security company called World of Trust, which generates its ratings by allowing random anonymous individuals to post whatever bizarre conspiracy theories they want, and then letting these loons vote on whether that news site is ‘real’ or not. These scam sites are now trying to use each other for cover, in order to back up the false and unsubstantiated ‘ratings’ they semi-randomly assign respected news outlets. …

“‘Media Bias Fact Check’ is truly just one guy making misleading claims about news outlets while failing to back them up with anything, while maliciously changing the ratings to punish any news outlets that try to expose the invalidity of what he’s doing.”

let us fact check Navid's criticism of the fact checkers.

(1) his comments are unattributed

(2) he uses emotive phases rather than factual descriptions

(3) he does not criticise incorrect content, nor competence of owners, but claims said owners have undesirable characteristics

(4) His view of undesirable - any medic - would appear so extreme as to eliminate most people with genuine skill and experience on COVID

Then, egregiously, having posted what he thinks is a condemnation of some fact checking websites, he uses this to argue that one specific fact checker is worthless without stating which of these cases applies to that site! Or perhaps none do?

Then he quotes (again without attribution) somone who does not like the fact checking Van Zandt has done. Again, no facts involved in this accusation, just rhetoric and unspecific allegations from somone who has been called out by Van Zandt. If Navid insists we could check further to see whether generally Van Zandt's evaluation of this person's content is an outlier, or whether other fact checkers agree. Oh, I forgot, Navid does not approve of fact checkers, so that would be irrelevant to him.

I am not fond of people or websites who claim on strength of opinion, without facts, that whole sections of comment, like fact-checkers or medics, should be ignored because they are obviously unreliable.

Navid's posts on this thread are indeed often unreliable and contain opinion without attributable and checkable fact. Not surprising that Navid has this strong dislike of fact-checking websites!

Display More

Go read this article (the source).

I have no interest in using fact-checking websites. Someone is being paid to build them. Why would I trust Van Zandt over say, my neighbor or someone on the subway? In fact, we should be more skeptical because they exist to be the arbiter of truth. Imagine trying to learn about LENR from wikipedia? How successful will that be?

Outsourcing the work of thinking is not useful, in the end it can be deadly. Do your own thinking and read source literature.

Suddenly fact checking websites need defense against "condemnation", and Van Zandt is a subject of "accusation". Most people would just say "ya looks like it's a scam deal"--and move on. Instead, you're trying to mount a case against my sentiment on fact-checkers - as if it is a court of law - why are you working so hard to defend them like a lawyer if you aren't getting paid?

Quote from Wyttenbach

Stefan already said it. Fergusons is totally wrong because about 70-80% of all people have a cross immunity from old (recent) corona infects. All these will not show any antibodies despite having some weak symptoms. This is also confirmed by many studies which show that a large percentage that show a low number of anti bodies will loose them after some months what is typical for a cross immunity where the main response is given by the old memory cells and only in case of under responding new (a few) immunity cell will being expressed .

That argument is an obvious possibility. It does not show Ferguson wrong however, because his point is that the data from before and after lockdown does not show any of the herd immunity effects you would expect in that case, for levels of infection in the EU.

It does not preclude some plateau at a level of infection significantly higher than anyone has reached.

Also - it does not work. If this 70 - 80% cross-immune people are not infectious we are close to herd immunity and the disease could never show Rt = 4 as it did.

If this 70 - 80% cross-immune people are infectious they do not create a plateau - rather they explain the relatively low IFR of 0.7%.

If this 70-80% are so asymptomatic they do not get tested (which would give positive antigen test) they create a problematic infection plateau at 20-30% of population infected. Possible, but much higher than achieved in EU.

So we cannot rule out plateau at much higher levels of seropositive infection than so far allowed to happen most places, say 20-30%. Sweden out to be giving us evidence for or against such a plateau, at least in Stockholm?

Quote from Navid

Suddenly fact checking websites need defense against "condemnation", and Van Zandt is a subject of "accusation". Most people would just say "ya looks like it's a scam deal"--and move on. Instead, you're trying to mount a case against my sentiment on fact-checkers - as if it is a court of law - why are you working so hard to defend them like a lawyer if you aren't getting paid?

Your sentiment on facts is clear; you post here unverifiable statements as facts, you use emotive words and innuendo in pace of argument.

Your defence is that no-one should care because anyone who spends hours researching your statements can determine they are counterfactual and you are talking out of your arse, and that somehow they should do this because otehrwise they will be outsourcing thinking to others.

The distinction (between your accusation of VZ and his judgement of websites) is that his judgement is based on verifiable fact - which he gives - and your accusation is based on unverifiable opinion.

I'm doing this because :

(a) you said I was paid, and dishonest. I'll not rest on calling you out until that is retracted. I mean it - these accusations are serious, and untrue.

(b) my main motivation here is I like working things out and finding as best we can what seems to be true. Your posts here which deny truth and promote conspiracies, without facts, claiming fact-checkers are all evil and everyone should check facts for themselves, when you know full well it would be an intolerable time burden to do this, are bad for this thread, bad for truth, morally reprehensible unless you live in a modern world in which facts do not exist and fact checking irrelevant. This strand of your posting is all that I detest and hate.

I know full well that saying these things does not change other people's (e.g. your) mind, which is why I don't usually do it. I'm doing it now because of (a) above.

THHuxleynew why are you still supporting [Gilead] an absolute ruthless company???

It may surprise you but I've got no opinion about Gilead, nor about whether Remdesivir is a useful drug for COVID-19. Too little evidence. That is not support.

you have claimed these guys are fraudulent. Well, it is always possible, but I tend to assume it happens rarely, and you have as yet shown no evidence of this. The trial that was terminated early does not give much chance for this, since it was an RCT, but equally is not statistically very powerful so I don't much rate its results. It is not claiming mortality improvement.

Today's Atlanta Journal reports that we DO have case checkers in Georgia. There were only a few hundred before but now there are more. I have been saying we have next to none. I owe an apology to the state.

See:

https://www.ajc.com/news/state…e/eu0kG8EBP1qc2WgqqPHSaN/

Quote from Navid

The mind and soul together make a powerful force that impacts the body. So to talk about the placebo effect as some hocus pocus thing is comedy.

The placebo effect does not exist. It is a statistical and methodological error. Take 3 groups of patients:

1. Patients given effective drugs.

2. Patients given placebos.

3. Patients given nothing. No treatment, no visit to the doctor. Nothing.

It turns out groups 2 and 3 recover at the same rate. In other words, what people thought was an effect is actually only what happens when you leave a patient alone. It is not the placebo, it is nature taking its course. People often get better, just as deer, birds and all other animals do.

See:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200105243442106

As for the "soul," there is no scientific or quantifiable definition of it. There is no test or method of detecting it, or on the other hand proving that it does not exist. Claims about it cannot be tested or falsified. Therefore, in the context of a scientific discussion, it has no meaning. Perhaps it means something in some other context, such as literature.

Quote from THHuxleynew

That argument is an obvious possibility. It does not show Ferguson wrong however, because his point is that the data from before and after lockdown does not show any of the herd immunity effects you would expect in that case, for levels of infection in the EU.

There is no absolute knowledge about CoV-19. This will take at least 5 more years. But Ferguson completely missed the most obvious explanation because he did not read the important papers.

Cross immunity is not an absolute herd immunity as in case you get a high dose you can get really ill. This is exactly what we see here in Switzerland. Almost 0 deaths but an increase of infections due to reuse (reopening) of crowded places by brainless (drunk,speed hormones) people.

In fact almost all countries did show a decline in deaths before the lock down - but may be Ferguson missed some basic math classes or did not understand that there is a time lag between case/death.

Initially this time-lag was much shorter. Highly susceptible people could die within 3 days!!

CoV-19 is transmitted by air over hundreds of meters. This is now known for more than 2 months from plant! analysis. So virtually everybody had many contacts so far. Thus mask are counter productive for developing immunity except in places where you can get a high dose.

Quote from JedRothwell

The placebo effect does not exist. It is a statistical and methodological error. Take 3 groups of patients:

You are completely wrong. There are two famous studies one double blind placebo 1 against placebo 2. Guess the outcome. One more recent was the test of eyes drops for a certain illness. The drops failed the placebo won!! Now the placebo is a new medicament... In fact it was a "bad choice" for a placebo..

Quote from THHuxleynew

The epidemiologists use these simple exponentials that are obviously wrong. Their estimates of herd immunity do not take into account the way that those who have more contacts are more likely to catch the disease, nor the way that varied geography and demographics interacts.

Oh come now. They know that. In a sophisticated model they try to include such parameters, but they are difficult to measure or estimate.

Quote from Wyttenbach

You are completely wrong.

Not me. You are saying the authors of the NEJM are wrong, along with all the other doctors, epidemiologists, statisticians and assorted experts who have pointed this out since the 1950s. (Including my late mother, as it happens.)

I am not an expert, but I doubt that you know more than these people do.

Quote from JedRothwell

The placebo effect does not exist. It is a statistical and methodological error. Take 3 groups of patients:

1. Patients given effective drugs.

2. Patients given placebos.

3. Patients given nothing. No treatment, no visit to the doctor. Nothing.

It turns out groups 2 and 3 recover at the same rate. In other words, what people thought was an effect is actually only what happens when you leave a patient alone. It is not the placebo, it is nature taking its course. People often get better, just as deer, birds and all other animals do.

See:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200105243442106

As for the "soul," there is no scientific or quantifiable definition of it. There is no test or method of detecting it, or on the other hand proving that it does not exist. Claims about it cannot be tested or falsified. Therefore, in the context of a scientific discussion, it has no meaning. Perhaps it means something in some other context, such as literature.

Display More

You've already ignored many posts on this topic.

Go start by reading Victor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning if you want to begin to understand this in an accessible way.

As mentioned previously there are entire libraries of evidence. The notion that something doesn't exist until there is a mechanistic test for it, is a belief system (scientism) not actually how things work in reality. Many fields (morality, mathematics, language, theology, law) work on the basis of truth which is mined and discovered in the immaterial world.

As an example, falsification doesn't apply to mathematics since we begin with mutual agreements. It is not a material reality as much as you want to make it one; these fields mine an immateriality, a system of truths.

Quote from Navid

falsification doesn't apply to mathematics

well there is proof by contradiction in mathematics

Quote from Wyttenbach

Now the crazy Swiss state officials do force us to wear a mask in public transportation despite during 5 weeks of no mask we had no increase in cases.

We've had to wear a mask on public transit in Toronto for a few weeks now, and in indoor public places for the last week. Good thing is, if you forget a mask many smaller stores who know you as a customer let it pass.

But poor New Mexico in the US. They've had mandatory masks in public places (indoor or outdoor!) since mid May, in anticipation of partial reopenings in early June. But new daily cases continue to rise, and starting tomorrow some old restrictions are coming back, plus some new ones: Exercising outdoors in a public area? You have to wear a mask, otherwise you are subject to a one hundred dollar fine! Democratic governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has a new nickname: Wuhan Grisham.

Masks mandatory in public starting mid May:

https://www.lcsun-news.com/sto…-what-to-know/5194447002/

Mask wearing enforced by fine starting mid July:

https://www.usnews.com/news/be…r-flouting-face-mask-rule

Cases in New Mexico :

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/new-mexico/

Quote from JedRothwell

Oh come now. They know that. In a sophisticated model they try to include such parameters, but they are difficult to measure or estimate.

Yes, absolutely, I know. That is why, because more sophisticated heterogeneous models can show herd immunity at significantly lower levels - because the higher contact people are more likely to be infected, and then are immune - we really cannot be sure from the modelling what will happen. The problem the modellers have is too little data, and models with more parameters get over-fitted to the limited data.

Quote from Mark U

But poor New Mexico in the US. They've had mandatory masks in public places (indoor or outdoor!) since mid May, in anticipation of partial reopenings in early June. But new daily cases continue to rise, and starting tomorrow some old restrictions are coming back, plus some new ones: Exercising outdoors in a public area?

Masks - at least the one the public uses - may reduce the amount of droplets by 2/3. FP95 mask should be used instead.

But so far infections do only happen indoor where you may have a longer exposition or a person does cough in your face... Thus you should ensure a minimal distance.

Thus outdoor masks are pretty nonsensical. Critical are indoor places with no air circulation like elevators, back-rooms without windows etc.. Also very critical are all air conditioned places without HEPA filters or bad maintenance of HEPA filters. What air condition can do has been shown in the cruise ship diamond princess where finally about 20% of all passengers were infected.

Quote from Wyttenbach

But so far infections do only happen indoor

Wyttenfact Alert! Evidence please.

Quote from Navid

You've already ignored many posts on this topic.

No, I showed how the experts answered them. You disagree with the experts.

Quote from Navid

Go start by reading Victor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning if you want to begin to understand this in an accessible way.

I have read it. It has nothing to do with placebo effect. Regarding the soul, I would say the point of existentialism is that you invent your own purpose. If there is a soul, it is invented by you, the way an author invents a character.

Quote from Navid

As mentioned previously there are entire libraries of evidence.

Before 1952 there were entire libraries saying that the genes are encoded in proteins. They were wrong.

In fact, you are wrong. There is little evidence for the placebo effect. It is taken for granted, but all the research intended to find it has shown nothing more than recovering at the natural rate without medical help, and without a placebo.

Quote from JedRothwell

No, I showed how the experts answered them. You disagree with the experts.

I have read it. It has nothing to do with placebo effect. Regarding the soul, I would say the point of existentialism is that you invent your own purpose. If there is a soul, it is invented by you, the way an author invents a character.

Before 1952 there were entire libraries saying that the genes are encoded in proteins. They were wrong.

In fact, you are wrong. There is little evidence for the placebo effect. It is taken for granted, but all the research intended to find it has shown nothing more than recovering at the natural rate without medical help, and without a placebo.

Display More

Babies need to be fed with spoon. Spoon feeding implies an inability to make a coordinated set of actions that come to a conclusion. You were given enough material to think through to a conclusion.

Viktor Frankl's book talks about how your psychic frame can determine your physical reality. Nothing different in the materiality of their health. Very healthy people died. People with purpose lived. In short, someone who had a "why” for his existence, was able to tolerate any "how." Do we need to connect this like a baby to how there might be a placebo (mind/spirit/belief) effect? We are trying to help raise your consciousness here to what was manifestly obvious for most of human existence.

In 1952, there were not entire libraries saying such things about genes. Just like today, we say the viruses cause illness directly in all cases -- and that doesn't appear to actually be the case (the system is more complex -- it is more about regulation between the immune system and other factors) -- there aren't entire libraries here today.

You are wrong about the placebo effect because what someone believes does change their physical reality. The proof is all over the place. To deny that, is to deny your own humanity. This is the state of the modern mind on display. There is no reason to work hard to show this to you, but think about the perception of pain in hypnosis and what the cancer society says about placebos. Nobody is saying that a placebo effect is going to cure advanced pancreatic tumor.

Good quality research is lacking. The people who are in most of these studies are often not doing the best they can with spirit (are they actively using methods to enact their mind for healing). What are the protocols? Do you really believe that science has probed this question.

The best way to understand mind/spirit/body connection is to realize that it is widely acknowledge that stress is one of the main impacts on disease. The reverse, the reversal of disease is possible and happens regularly but most of medicine ignores it -- thus we are only at the baby step phase of even acknowledging a new paradigm is possible.