" A harsh lesson with Covid19 from Texas

"

Imagine the sound and vibration of an old-fashioned electric heater going through your whole body

. Imagine gasping for air with every step you take.

Imagine rubbing Icy Hot all over your head to soothe a painful headache.

Imagine your eyes in a bowl of water while you’re still seeing through them.

Imagine collapsing and waking up in the ER only to find out COVID-19 attacked your central nervous system,

and the doctor had just saved you from a stroke.

https://dallasvoice.com/a-hars…-the-reality-of-covid-19/

Quote from Lou Pagnucco

Two common essential oils may help block two of Covid's main receptor entry points,

ACE2 and TMPRSS2 --

Geranium and Lemon Essential Oils and Their Active Compounds Downregulate

Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2 (ACE2), a SARS-CoV-2 Spike Receptor-Binding Domain, in Epithelial Cells

https://www.mdpi.com/2223-7747/9/6/770

An example coordinated cyber-book-burning by CNN and the social "news" media --

Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube scrub platforms of viral video making false coronavirus claims

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/28…be-coronavirus/index.html

- CNN bases their condemnation of HCQ on the Brazilian study at URL -

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2019014

- which used double the usual HCQ doses in late stage patients without zinc, and admits:

"Finally, although the median time from symptom onset to randomization was 7 days, we included

patients up to 14 days after the beginning of symptoms; it is conceivable that interventions that may

limit viral replication (e.g., hydroxychloroquine) may be more effective earlier in the course of the disease."

Display More

CNN? Lol

Hmm here is a study with HCQ only it is randomized. I would have calculated for the non start positions the difference for ech timepoint between HCQ and placebo. Then study the mean. Sure then you can see if we assume all variation is measurement errors that a single sided t-test for the sequence 1,1,2,1 lead to a clear significan bias. So you model the patien outcome as X_pat,time = N(m_pat+m_time,s) by taking then M_1(hcq) - M_1(placebo) + ... + M_4(hcq) - M_4(placebo) = N(0,sqrt(2 s1**2 + 2 s2**2 + 2 s3**2 + 2 s4**2))=N(0,sqrt(8)) = N(0,2.8), because The statistics is 1+1+2+1 = 5 and the single value 95% confidens intervall is 2.8*2 = 5.6 so why this is not a significan result as it could be cherry picking to state that the bias seen in the graph is significant that is easy for the untrained eye to see. But it beats me why on earth this study only used HCQ, that's seam to be a waste of monney. But actually they could have done better to use a one sided interval and then it is 2.8*1.64 = 4.6 so actually the study seam to show a significant improvement with HCQ, this is in hindsight, I looked at the graphes etc so this should have been done before the study anyway the effect is smallbut still with supplements like Zink things might improve the result really is on the edge.

a recent HCQ randomized study again no significant effect, again only HCQ.

There are studies like henry ford that show dramatic positive results non Randomized tests with HCQ only. Now I above I digged out two randomized studies with HCQ only that show no or very little significant effect and not the dramatic effect in the Henry Ford study. I think that shows the weaknesses and how easy it is to get fooled by non randomized studies and anecdotes. Personally I see non randomized studies as a way to collect ideas for what to study, but to guide in everyday use, I agree with 99% of the swedish medical doctors, Randomized studies is a must. Now bring in some RCT's with Zink also and ivermectin.

Problems with New York City case tracking:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0…york-contact-tracing.html

Quote from Wyttenbach

Don't panic. Read what we write. I said deaths/cases not absolute deaths. Please study the Sweden case.

That ratio is changing mainly because young people are getting sick in larger proportions. That is not good news. It is also changing because therapy has improved. That is good.

Quote from JedRothwell

That ratio is changing mainly because young people are getting sick in larger proportions. That is not good news. It is also changing because therapy has improved. That is good.

It will be interesting to see what the incidence and duration of sequelae such as lung damage, cardiovascular damage and neurological damage will be in various age cohorts. Maybe not good, but interesting.

Me, I'm just keeping a reasonable distance from other people, not going to crowded places, wearing a mask in enclosed spaces where there are people, and I will take any vaccine that's passed safety and efficacy tests.

Because I'm fit, well, and 72 - and I intend to stay that way as long as possible. And I don't want (if I DO happen to catch the damned thing) to pass it to anyone else.

Quote from Nigel Appleton

It will be interesting to see what the incidence and duration of sequelae such as lung damage, cardiovascular damage and neurological damage will be in various age cohorts. Maybe not good, but interesting.

Yeah, sort of interesting . . . But I confess, I cannot read this kind of clinical study. It makes me feel queasy! I don't mind reading public health statistics, but case studies give me the heebie jeebies. I feel like I am coming down with every symptom described. Psychosomatic, no doubt.

Quote from Toffoli

Doctor Dispels Coronavirus Fears: ‘99.8 Percent of People Get Through this with Little to No Progressive or Significant Disease’

This doctor is a certified nitwit. 20% of patients are hospitalized! Even going to the doctor makes it a significant disease.

This guy Jay from Plasma Channel uses his home made corona discharge device (generating ozone) to very quickly disinfect his hands.

He could pass for a MacGyver. Great channel for plasma lovers!

Quote from stefan

There are studies like henry ford that show dramatic positive results non Randomized tests with HCQ only. Now I above I digged out two randomized studies with HCQ only that show no or very little significant effect and not the dramatic effect in the Henry Ford study. I think that shows the weaknesses and how easy it is to get fooled by non randomized studies and anecdotes. Personally I see non randomized studies as a way to collect ideas for what to study, but to guide in everyday use, I agree with 99% of the swedish medical doctors, Randomized studies is a must. Now bring in some RCT's with Zink also and ivermectin.

People like doing RCTs of single drugs because nearly always if A + B work better, then A and B still have some effect individually.

At the moment we have maybe 5 candidates for anti-COVID drugs - 20 if you include all the in vitro good possibilities.

You can't test all combos.

The idea that AZT / zinc / HCQ are synergistic has little scientiific support. The zinc ionophore idea is interesting but there is little evidence (can somone find it?) that the levels of zinc taken signiifcantly alter somatic zinc levels - which are maintained by a hoimeostasis as long as enough zinc is in diet. maybe 25% of people are deficient - but 25% reduction in effect still leaves a noticeable effect.

THH

Quote from Mark U

This guy Jay from Plasma Channel uses his home made corona discharge device (generating ozone) to very quickly disinfect his hands.

He could pass for a MacGyver.

Mizuno recently made a similar gadget incorporated in a mask. It runs all incoming air through a plasma, which kills any bacteria or virus. It is powered all day with a cell phone battery. It makes the air smell of ozone, but otherwise has no effect. (He says.)

It is a shame he cannot have it mass produced. I do not think there is time during this pandemic, and I doubt he could attract any interest.

He learned how to do this while working with glow discharge cold fusion.

Quote from THHuxleynew

At the moment we have maybe 5 candidates for anti-COVID drugs - 20 if you include all the in vitro good possibilities.

You can't test all combos.

The permutations do get out of hand.

I was once enrolled in a medical study with two drugs, A and B (calcium and vitamin D), which they hoped would reduce the likelihood of colon cancer. They were looking for middle-aged candidates in several categories: male, female, black, white. The hypothesis was that A might be effective, B might be effective, and they might work better with both. They gave the drugs to healthy people for 10 years, to see how many of us got cancer. (They also asked nosey questions and took samples of DNA and various other things.) So, you end up with 4 combinations of pills, given in blind testing:

A, A+B, B, placebo

Given to 4 groups of people:

black male, black female, white male, white female

That's 16 combinations. Even with thousands of people enrolled, it is difficult to get statistically significant results, because each group ends up being small; because the effect of the drugs was marginal at best; and because very few middle-aged people get cancer in the first place.

The results were inconclusive.

It is a lot easier to test a COVID-19 therapy, because we have hundreds of people who need it, and you can tell when someone dies a week into the study.

Quote from THHuxleynew

The idea that AZT / zinc / HCQ are synergistic has little scientiific support.

THHuxleynew : Your FUD of the day! Didn't you read the 10+ studies about HCQ AZT/doxy + Zinc ??

Can you show us one study using this combo that failed please ?

Or better stop to post false information!

Quote from THHuxleynew

People like doing RCTs of single drugs because nearly always if A + B work better, then A and B still have some effect individually.

At the moment we have maybe 5 candidates for anti-COVID drugs - 20 if you include all the in vitro good possibilities.

You can't test all combos.

The idea that AZT / zinc / HCQ are synergistic has little scientiific support. The zinc ionophore idea is interesting but there is little evidence (can somone find it?) that the levels of zinc taken signiifcantly alter somatic zinc levels - which are maintained by a hoimeostasis as long as enough zinc is in diet. maybe 25% of people are deficient - but 25% reduction in effect still leaves a noticeable effect.

THH

Display More

It is a falacy that you need to test all combinations. Please read up about the statistical field of design of experiments but yes typically you do have an effect by individuals that is very common but not always and then interactin effects need to be included in the modell still not combinatorial in complexity but n^2 (Childs from Saphire fame is a proponent of the use of Design of Experiments also I am)

Quote from Mark U

At least there is a video there of Trump saying "it" in a rally, namely this:

"I said to my people, 'Slow the testing down please,' "

But I noticed also the manner in which he said it. It was entirely compatible with being tongue in cheek.

Trump has repeated this many times. Here is a quote from a White House transcript. This was not tongue in cheek.

"And, frankly, if we didn’t test, you wouldn’t have all the headlines because we’re showing cases. And we have just about the lowest mortality rate. But if we did — think of this: If we didn’t do testing — instead of testing over 40 million people, if we did half the testing, we would have half the cases. If we did another — you cut that in half, we would have, yet again, half of that.

But the headlines are always testing. Now, the testing is a good thing, but at the same time, it’s — it’s fodder for the fake news to report cases. So we’re doing 40 million-plus, going to be very close to 45 million people. And when I turn on the news, I see, “cases, cases, cases.” They don’t talk about deaths being cut down to a level that — actually, “tenfold,” they use. I got that from one of the very respected media outlets — “Tenfold.” Cut tenfold. Yes, but they don’t talk about that; they talk about cases. And the cases are created because of the fact that we do tremendous testing. We have the best testing in the world."

https://www.whitehouse.gov/bri…-press-conference-071420/

You can also confirm this is Trump's policy because the administration is asking Congress cut funding for testing and cast tracking. That is not tongue in cheek either. Administration officials in conference with GOP Senators do not make jokes about the worst pandemic in 100 years. When they say they want to cut funding, they mean it. It is a deliberate effort to slow down or stop the testing. Other members of the administration have said that, as clearly as Trump himself said it, and they gave the same reasons. Apparently they believe that all other countries have equally high numbers of cases but they are not testing so the numbers do not show up. This is incorrect. We know it is incorrect because other countries do not have thousands of patients in hospitals and a thousand people a day dying. In other words, the test results are not the only way you can tell how many cases there are in a population.

Quote from stefan

It is a falacy that you need to test all combinations.

Even if you do not, you still need one group for each drug, plus 1 placebo, plus in the U.S. you may need male and female and different racial types. Some drugs have a measurably different effect depending on sex and race. I wouldn't know about COVID-19 drugs. You might need an obese group, age groups, or some other groups. I wouldn't know.

Even with thousands of critically ill patients you end up with many different small studies. The effort is fragmented. Also, those thousands of patients are not available for long. Most of them get better in a few weeks, or die.

Quote from JedRothwell

Even if you do not, you still need one group for each drug, plus 1 placebo, plus in the U.S. you may need male and female and different racial types. Some drugs have a measurably different effect depending on sex and race. I wouldn't know about COVID-19 drugs. You might need an obese group, age groups, or some other groups. I wouldn't know.

Even with thousands of critically ill patients you end up with many different small studies. The effort is fragmented. Also, those thousands of patients are not available for long. Most of them get better in a few weeks, or die.

Actually I'm taught to do one study with everything so in a sense you do not do one study for each group although in medicine it is often required to do both, both a study for each group and a study of everything. Else you are correct you scale the size of the study with each factor. Usually for top notch studies one perform an analysis for how many cases is needed to be able to find interesting effects. But I'm wondering a little if it would not be better to focus fewer groups meaning combining man/femail and select an age group and in stead study many more combinations in order to find a really good treatment. Not sure as a small positive effect can guide you to new medicines and break throughs. Perhaps we need both kinds.