Covid-19 News

Quote from Bob#2

Another observational story... not an RCT but I find the amount of observations that I have been personally involved with (not some internet rumor) but actual first hand, is quite interesting.

A while back I posted about a friends elderly aunt in Chicago who tested positive for Covid. Despite being in her mid 80's and having several severe existing health issues, her Covid symptoms were extremely mild, requiring no hospitalization and only resting care. She was a long sufferer of arthritis and on daily HCQ. Interesting.

Today, I had a call from a high school friend I had not talked to for a few years. He stated he tested positive in late March and had some severe flu symptoms, most notability very bad fatigue. It took him several weeks to get over it. His wife also tested positive and had a bad time of it, although neither required hospitalization. They have an adult daughter and grandchild who lives with them. While the daughter was in extreme close contact with both in the household, helping take care of them (before they took the tests to see if they had Covid), she never experienced any symptoms. Because she never experienced symptoms, she has not been tested, but in any case, it is almost certain she was heavily exposed.

Again, observational but very interesting, she has Lupus and takes HCQ daily.

RCT's have been extolled as the only "yard stick" in which to measure effectiveness. Yet RCT's are fraught with error if they are not designed or carried out properly. They take a long time and there is no guarantee that they will not miss a key "ingrediant".

It would seem simple, rather fast and statistically valid if a study was conducted that compared the rates of known Lupus and Arthritic patients, of the same age range that took and did not take HCQ and compare the COVID findings. There evidently is a very large patient base in the US alone that has Lupus or Arthritis. Comparing the patients who take HCQ versus who do not should tell an interesting story.

I expect some here will say that is not an RCT and therefore useless. However, if such a study showed findings such as I have observed in a minute sampling and it was shown the same over 4 or 5 thousand comparative cases, it would be hard to argue.

But then, I doubt no one will do it because it appears that there is a active movement in the US against HCQ. I am starting to see the same type of "anti- Ivermectin" stories circulated as well!

Display More

Bob#2,

I agree, these studies cannot be termed “useless” simply because they don’t comply with accepted practices.

They are still “experiences, experiments and observations” (the basis of all science),

of what actually happened.

They may not be definitive, BUT, if they have been replicated by multiple trusted sources, then, they MUST be included when developing theory.

HQC, Am, ZN, probably all have a time, place, dose etc in this process.

We shall see.

Quote from Navid

The fact that we know BHCG hormones were administered surreptitiously in vaccines to sterilize African women is a proven fact easily found.

Sure.... A fact so easily found that you are unable to provide a verifiable link it seems.

Quote from Navid

But here is the kicker that CNBC video has been edited. And I can prove it.

Go on then, prove it. And no, proof by assertion doesn't count.

Quote from Navid

It is rather interesting that you knew the video I was talking about since there are tons of videos between Gates and Quick and this one isn't at the top of the search results.

Perhaps you should either get better firewall software, or add a few more layers to your tin foil hat.

Quote from THHuxleynew

So Fauci saying that it has been shown to be ineffective is true.

I am confused. If it takes a large randomized study to say it is effective, doesn't it take a randomized study to say it is ineffective?

I didn't think there was a full large randomized study at all.

What am I missing?

Quote from oldguy

I am confused. If it takes a large randomized study to say it is effective, doesn't it take a randomized study to say it is ineffective?

I didn't think there was a full large randomized study at all.

What am I missing?

I think that what is meant is that you can rule out a big effect but not prove that there is not a small effect, just that.

Quote from JedRothwell

That is profound misinformation. Gates gets no benefit from vaccines. His foundation is paying for them, not investing in them. It is a philanthropic organization, meaning it cannot earn money on the grants it gives out.

The Gavi organization - set up by the Gates Foundation - acquires the vaccines from manufactures, at prices that give the manufactures a healthy profit. You should realize that the Gates Foundation does not simply donate money to various organizations. It has an investment arm, which includes investments into vaccine manufacturing among many other things. It may be philanthropic, but that philanthropy is good for business as well. Gates is opening (pun intended) the developing world to business, notably, the Gates' Foundations business. Bill Gates' net worth has doubled to about 10 billion dollars in the last ten years. Not bad for philanthropy eh?

I am a bit inclined to leave of things here, since Navid, Wyttenbach, maybe others spend their time saying I lie and have some friend or work related agenda.

Then the same say that Fauci, Bill Gates, pretty well everyone under the sun whose views they don't like, lies.

It is not true, and not helpful to debate when people who say things you disagree with are called liar.

This lack of rational discourse (what do you call branding all those you disagree with as liars, or corrupt?) is a big problem.

I have no agenda here. I am paid by no-one, owe allegiance to no-one - know nothing about the medical establishment nor Gilead not Gates, other than what I read here and what google tells me.

I consistently say what I think true. I've several times changed my mind, and probably will do so again given that info on COVID is so partial at the moment. I change my mind on (on balance opinion) could HCQ be a useful proiphylactic on the basis of that very small sample from the Boulware appendix of patients given early HCQ or placebo. But it is still not clear. The statistics used by Marcio are wrongly interpreted (by some here and by marcio). He argues that if there is a linear relationship between exposure and time to treatment it has with high probability a negative slope. True - but we do not know there is such a relationship. Comparing that with a null hypothesis of no effect, you have to factor in the extra information needed to do a regression on the data which reduces the prior probability of an linear relationship theory over a "no relationship" theory.

I'll happily go on arguing that: and adjust my tentative conclusions one way or the other when I have clearer statistics about the a priori likelihood of that regression fit versus a simpler model with fewer parameters (AKA fudge factors).

I do not always side with the establishment - but I consistently don't believe silly way-out conspiracy theories based on speculation and errorneous facts (the Gates has illicitly sterilised African women one). Tell me those in charge are incompetent or lazy or maybe just make mistakes like normal people do - I'll believe you any day. Though it is not always true. Tell me they are all joined together in some nebulous conspiracy - I won't.

https://www.typeinvestigations…trol-conspiracy-theories/

In 2010, a former staffer with a government health initiative in Ghana made a shocking claim: a project partially funded by the Gates Foundation had tested the contraceptive Depo-Provera on unsuspecting villagers in the remote region of Navrongo, as part of an illicit “population experiment.” The woman making the charge was the Ghanian-born, U.S.-educated communications officer for another Gates-funded initiative by the Ghanaian government and Columbia University to use mobile phones to improve health care access for rural women and children. She had previously attempted to sue her employer for a multi-million dollar settlement when, after repeated clashes with her boss, her contract wasn’t renewed.

The lawsuit fizzled, but with help from a small U.S. nonprofit called the Rebecca Project for Human Rights, she shopped a series of stories to Ghana’s tabloid press. The Depo-Provera story caused a national scandal. Although it was denounced by Ghanaian health professionals and traditional leaders as libelous—the Navrongo project hadn’t tested any medications— so many death threats were directed at the project that some staff had to be evacuated across the Burkina Faso border.

In the US politics has degenerated to calling those you don't like liars, or saying they are corrupt - and it seems this is now effecting debate in other areas. It is a sorry thing, and those who do it here should be ashamed of themselves.

Navid - posting videos from far-right conspiracy theory crackpots is not evidence of anything other than that google is taking you to some weird places, and weird views exist. We knew that already.

Polio vaccines do not kill large numbers of children, and they have stopped Polio:

https://thelogicalindian.com/f…19-gates-foundation-21270

the gates foundation was not kicked out of India:

https://fullfact.org/online/gates-polio-vaccine/

Bill gates does not face trial for anything:

https://www.reuters.com/articl…on-children-idUSKBN22V27F

What the Gates foundation does do - which is a 100% wholehearted good - unless you are an orthodox Roman Catholic - and the one thing that can most easily empower women to make wise choices for themselves and their countries:

https://www.gatesfoundation.or…velopment/family-planning

The evidence on other low-level Polio-like diseases (non-Polio enterovirses or NPEs) is interesting, but a different story from Polio. Provably so. The MOST you might argue, were you interested in fact, is that there is currently an increasing but low level epidemic (in various Polio-free places) of non-Polio enteroviruses that deliver Polio-like symptoms. You might speculate that taking Polio out of the picture has allowed new viruses to flourish in the same ecological niche. Tout la change, c'est la meme chose.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6624138/

if you distrust the "standard" advice then let us go to the peer-reviewed literature for ebvidence. i'm up for it, with a well-defined question like "do gates foundation vaccines cause more polio than they have prevented?".

RB - claiming there is a conspiracy to kill people in the US by denying them HCQ is scientifically lazy and wrong unless you can be more precise. What usage of HCQ is their clear overall evidence for which is being suppressed? If prophylaxis explain to us all how this will work? And, BTW - i'd be inclined to think you guilty of projection if you really have such a low opinion of the morality of so many people.

THH

Quote from Mark U

The Gavi organization - set up by the Gates Foundation - acquires the vaccines from manufactures, at prices that give the manufactures a healthy profit. You should realize that the Gates Foundation does not simply donate money to various organizations. It has an investment arm, which includes investments into vaccine manufacturing among many other things. It may be philanthropic, but that philanthropy is good for business as well. Gates is opening (pun intended) the developing world to business, notably, the Gates' Foundations business. Bill Gates' net worth has doubled to about 10 billion dollars in the last ten years. Not bad for philanthropy eh?

Mark U - this is scurrilous and silly. Ok, you don't like rich people. I personally think wealth differentials are much too high, would want major concerted efforts to tax rich people. As do some rich people including Gates

https://markets.businessinside…ve-blog-2020-1-1028791394

And why single out Gates? If you look at the world's 10 richest people you will see he is 3rd from the bottom in terms of wealth increase over the last decade

https://www.foxbusiness.com/mo…s-soared-over-past-decade

Otherwise, if I wanted a particular public good, I would want investors to make money out of providing it - then it would happen.

Disclaimer,

i have never, directly or indirectly, been paid money or benefits in kind from Gates, his Foundation, or anyone associated with him/it. I don't know gates. I don't like Microsoft (though F# is a cool programming language and dotnet core is now looking like a decent programming environment).

THH

Gosh THH, you conclude I don't like rich people, and you say I'm scurrilous and silly. But just to be silly : think of the conundrum I'll be in if and when Rossi gets rich!

Quote from Mark U

Gosh THH, you conclude I don't like rich people, and you say I'm scurrilous and silly. But just to be silly : think of the conundrum I'll be in if and when Rossi gets rich!

Yeah, but that won't happen because he will if you remember give all the money away to orphans?

Seriously, you have not looked into Florida real estate. COVID may have impacted property values, but he is still rich.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I am a bit inclined to leave of things here, since Navid, Wyttenbach, maybe others spend their time saying I lie and have some friend or work related agenda.

We do not say you intentionally lie. But interestingly it is always in favor of the mafia!

You said: Remdesivir appears to reduce hospital time. THH: BIG DEAL FOR HOSPITALS WHEN OVERLOADED - COST EFFECTIVE WHEN NOT. ....

Why do you not spend more time to debunk such mafia memes????

Switzerland used Kaltetra and the Gilead crap from day one on. They were very proud at the beginning as people did live longer with both drugs. But after about 10 weeks the treatment was completely stopped as the statistics were clear: People in average did die 7 days longer with Kaletra. Gilead crap is 20-30% better but they were not allowed to report the delay of death with Remdesivir as a part of the initial free gift agreement... You can calculate it yourself.

Do you really not understand the crap you say???? Overall costs increase and overall patient days in ICU do increase (not decrease) with Remdesivir Gilead crap!

The communication of Gilead is outrageous criminal with only one target to make money to be paid by patients that will have a very long death phase. This is torture. In my view you are a supporter of this outrageous inhuman conduct and this doesn't even bother you.

Instead you try, the ones that see behind your engagement, into a conspiracy corner.

As said once before : In my view you area very ugly spin doctor with a strong inhuman tendency!

Nobody will believe what you said above:

Quote from Wyttenbach

Why do you not spend more time to debunk such mafia memes????

Switzerland used Kaltetra and the Gilead crap from day one on. They were very proud at the beginning as people did live longer with both drugs. But after about 10 weeks the treatment was completely stopped as the statistics were clear: People in average did die 7 days longer with Kaletra. Gilead crap is 20-30% better but they were not allowed to report the delay of death with Remdesivir as a part of the initial free gift agreement... You can calculate it yourself.

I don't take kindly to people using organised crime labels carelessly. The Mafia - all their various incarnations - and the modern organised crime organisations - are anathema to civilised society. Theya re not the same as acientists disagreeing over best treatment for COVID.

No-one is promoting Kaletra now, because there is no evidence for it.

Remdesivir - I had not noticed much promotion. I'll be interested in what better RCTs say about it.

However the drugs that should get people's attention here seem to be being suppressed. Why? Are you paid by an LENR mafia?

Dexamethazone - decreases mortality by 30%

Nebulised interferon beta (Synairgen) flakey evidence so far from mfr only, claims it reduces severe disease progression by 79%, but strong reservations about whether phase 2 results are meaningful:

https://www.sciencemediacentre…als-on-covid-19-patients/

These two drugs alone (assuming the Synairgen one is not just hot air - the trial was iffy) will make an enormous different to COVID outcomes.

Quote from Navid

Bill Gates said in that video he has had a 20:1 return (that is 2000%) on vaccines.

The caption to the video says : "Gates made a $10B investment on vaccine development and distribution over the last 20 years."
And he does say that the investment in vaccines had a 20:1 return.

Both of these refer to the GATES FOUNDATION and not to Bill Gates personally.

(I'm pretty sure that US charitable foundations are allowed to make profits from particular activities.)

EDIT : at 1:13 it's very clear that the 20:1 is in economic benefit (lives saved, illness and death avoided), not in cash profits.

Why are people not talking more about interferon-beta1b?

https://www.medrxiv.org/conten…101/2020.05.28.20116467v1

RCT 1 month ago on subcutaneous injected drug - small but large enough for the outcome shown to be highly significant. 28-day mortality down from 43% to 19%!

And this is when it is given to patients well after symptoms commence:

Median time from starting the symptoms (according to patients’ reports) to start IFN was 10 days

The nebularised version (is it the same interferon-beta used?) is obviously better in terms of side effects because it is delivered where it is most needed rather than throughout the body.

Not sure whether to believe the claimed RCT 79% reduction in mortality - but if so that is a bigger deal than any other treatment known now.

THH

Quote from Navid

First, Gates has massive investments in vaccines, and he has said he has made money from them.

No one makes money from mass market vaccines. They are one of the few drugs that produce almost no profit. The government has to plead with drug companies to make them. Granted, whichever company manages to make a COVID-19 vaccine first will probably make a ton of money. There are dozens of companies working on that. If Gates has a large investment in every one of them, he might make money, unless the winner happens to be in China, or a national lab.

Anyway, what you write is pure conspiracy theory bullshit, like the rumors that the moon landings were faked. You should get a life. Stop buying into every idiotic notion you find under a rock on the internet. That's bad for your brain.

Quote from Alan Fletcher

The caption to the video says : "Gates made a $10B investment on vaccine development and distribution over the last 20 years."
And he does say that the investment in vaccines had a 20:1 return.

Both of these refer to the GATES FOUNDATION and not to Bill Gates personally.

(I'm pretty sure that US charitable foundations are allowed to make profits from particular activities.)

EDIT : at 1:13 it's very clear that the 20:1 is in economic benefit (lives saved, illness and death avoided), not in cash profits.

Display More

Are you saying the foundation did make a 20:1 return (ie $200B profits) or not?

Quote from JedRothwell

No one makes money from mass market vaccines.

>> bullshit

Quote from Alan Smith

Good explanation of how America is doing well on Covid-19 deaths.

That reporter has guts!

I have a sense that Trump believes what he says in these situations. He really is an innumerate idiot.

He is right that the U.S. has good case mortality compared to some other countries, but that has no bearing on per capita cases or per capita mortality. The rate is 9.5% in the EU, 3.3% in the U.S., and 2.1% in S. Korea. See:

https://ourworldindata.org/cor…c=location&pickerSort=asc

Here is what the reporter was talking about: confirmed deaths per day, per capita. THe U.S. leads the world in that. I think only Brazil and a few other places are worse:

https://ourworldindata.org/cor…c=location&pickerSort=asc