Covid-19 News

Quote from Rends

it is more the astonishment how it is possible to have so much opinion in combination with so little clue.

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

Quote from Lou Pagnucco

Also, weren't you recently defending the "Recovery Trial" based on trust of academic "elites"?

Certainly it wasn't a "cabal" designing a study certain to provide negative results, but, if time

permits, it would be reassuring to have you refute the claims in the latest Peak Properity video

on the Recovery Trial, or those in the following video -

On this thread some people have consistently posted videos, as PR.

I will happily read and discuss, perhaps refute, perhaps agree with, any seriously written claims. I'm familiar with some of the claims made about the RECOVERY trial and why those are bullshit.

I will not engage in counter-propaganda trying to discuss videos. If your reasons for holding beliefs are rooted only, or mainly, in internet videos, may I suggest that they are not securely held?

Apart from anything else it is disrespectful. To properly refute a video you need first to transcribe all of its content, then examine it. I don't have the time for that. If you do I'll refute a transcription.

But of course you know the reason for these videos is they are not about hard cold refutable facts. They are about propaganda, winning hearts. They have no place in any discussion trying to find the truth.

Here is what I find strange about the conspiracy theories and doubts about vaccines. People do not have similar doubts about other modern technology. No one goes around saying "airplanes don't really fly" or "the Internet is a myth." You need only glance at the data for polio and other diseases to see that vaccines are among the most effective inventions in history. The failure rate is not one in a million for most of them. They rival the safety of commercial airlines, with 1 fatality in 3 million trips.

The doubts about vaccines are so irrational, and so totally without foundation, that frankly I think they have no place in a discussion group about science. There has to be some reasonable standard for what is an accepted scientific fact. Imagine someone here saying that the Laws of Thermodynamics are a conspiracy foisted on us by the oil companies to prevent the use of perpetual motion machines.

Quote from Navid

It happens to me to - and yes I wear masks but at least I know they are ritualistic devices.

Unsurprising. Always had you down as a hypocrite.

Ever since you ducked the question about whether your kids were vaccinated or not.

Quote from JedRothwell

Here is what I find strange about the conspiracy theories and doubts about vaccines. People do not have similar doubts about other modern technology. No one goes around saying "airplanes don't really fly" or "the Internet is a myth." You need only glance at the data for polio and other diseases to see that vaccines are among the most effective inventions in history. The failure rate is not one in a million for most of them. They rival the safety of commercial airlines, with 1 fatality in 3 million trips.

The doubts about vaccines are so irrational, and so totally without foundation, that frankly I think they have no place in a discussion group about science. There has to be some reasonable standard for what is an accepted scientific fact. Imagine someone here saying that the Laws of Thermodynamics are a conspiracy foisted on us by the oil companies to prevent the use of perpetual motion machines.

Your waving of the flag of science is comedy. People post data that should be a punch in the face, but you ignore it and continue on unabated. Science starts with observations and many things are awry -- the rise of autoimmune disorders being an obvious one.

The vaccine paradigm is breaking as 19th century tech and you are declaring victory and the need for "no discussion." You need to study history, and how they played with definitions - for example in your beloved polio victory. Polio in 1955 was high, and after the vaccine heavy CDC turned it into asceptic meningitis - changing definitions allowed them to declare success. Today it is "died with covid" (I heard form Michael Levitt that given that stat 20% of people die with influenza in some years so the pandemic in those years (2017) may have been even greater!

But alas, facts don't matter...when fascist thinking is afoot.

Quote from Wyttenbach

There is no elite. There are people in power with vastly below average intelligence. Also doctors are mostly among the less talented college finishers.

half of the doctors graduated in the lower half of their graduating class.

I’m absolutely positive that 1/2 the bricklayers, mechanics, housewives,

athletes, landscapers etc did also,

BUT, many are professionals and very good at what they do.

Where you graduated in your class means less than 2 dead flies.

Quote from Navid

The vaccine paradigm is breaking as 19th century tech and you are declaring victory and the need for "no discussion."

Actually, 18th century, but who's counting. Are you suggesting that scientific facts have a sell-by date, and after that they automatically become untrue? Do you also think that Newton's laws and thermodynamics are "paradigms" that are "breaking"?

You have some weird notions.

Quote from Wyttenbach

There are people in power with vastly below average intelligence.

Twitter power.. Simone Gold censored for publishing HCQ +ve studies..

However the internet is a double edged sword..

Unfortunately this HCQ prescription link doesn't work in Australia

http://rehobothmedicalcenter.com/telemedicine-consultation/

"

Many patients are interested in obtaining hydroyxchloroquine for prophylactic or early treatment of COVID-19.

It is very difficult to do that in many states for three reasons.

Often the doctor is not HCQ knowledgable,

sometimes the state Governors have threatened the physicians if they do prescribe hydroxychloroquine,

and sometimes the Governors have empowered the pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions.

If you find yourself in one of these situations, we have a solution.

You can consult with a HCQ-knowledgeable physician through tele-medicine.

Tele-medicine is a well-established, mainstream American medical practice,

whereby a patient consults with a physician online. In-person and virtual visits are both valid,

and many physicians do both.

By clicking here, you will be taken to a third-party site and they will call you to set an appointment,

typically within 24 hours.

If the physician believes you need a prescription for HCQ

they will also arrange a pharmacy to fill that prescription.

It’s that simple. Keep the government out of the Doctor-Patient relationship.

Quote from JedRothwell

Actually, 18th century, but who's counting. Are you suggesting that scientific facts have a sell-by date, and after that they automatically become untrue? Do you also think that Newton's laws and thermodynamics are "paradigms" that are "breaking"?

You have some weird notions.

I'm not suggesting anything about a best-before date for science, science is jumbled bag of data, theories, and cultural practice. Since it isn't anything in particular -- stating general things about "sell-by-date" doesn't make sense. Observation is what matters above all and evidence.

To be definitive:I am saying this tech is well expired based on data and observations, and insiders in vaccine science know this.

Vaccines are not physical laws of the universe, unless you live in some quantum mechanical universe where that law is true for you...

Jed's Vaccine Laws

1st law

Diseases remain exponential growth vectors in the human body unless acted upon by an opposing vaccine.

2nd law

Vaccine force = m * a = massive dosing * adjuvant potency

3rd law

For every virus there is an equal and opposite vaccine.

Basic stats..error. .. or antiHCQ spin?

three papers published in leading journals...addressed by open letter

Boulware et al

“In this trial, high doses of HCQ did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 when initiated within 4 days after a high-risk or moderate-risk exposure”
Skipper et al
“Hydroxychloroquine did not substantially reduce symptom severity in outpatients with early, mild COVID-19.”
Mitjà et al.4
“In patients with mild Covid-19, no benefit was observed with HCQ beyond the usual care.”

These three papers.. share at least one common mistake: the conclusions they draw from their data are wrong.

All three papers lead, explicitly2,4 or implicitly 3
, to the conclusion that early treatment of COVID-19 patients with HCQ is not effective.

In saying that the conclusions are wrong we are not affirming that HCQ is effective.

This is a subtle but important distinction.

The null hypothesis in these articles is defined as H0: treatment effect = control effect. I

in any classical statistical test, the null hypothesis can never be accepted,

it can only be not rejected. This is a well known issue.

https://zenodo.org/record/3996…er-Hydroxy.pdf?download=1

Quote from Wyttenbach

There are people in power with vastly below average intelligence. Also doctors are mostly among the less talented college finishers.

Wyttenfact alert!

People in power can have very little common sense, but not one (at least in a democracy) has IQ less than average. As for doctors - it is difficult to compare College finishers, but medicine courses in the UK have higher entry requirements than other university subjects, so draw your conclusions.

Quote from RobertBryant

Boulware et al

“In this trial, high doses of HCQ did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 when initiated within 4 days after a high-risk or moderate-risk exposure”
Skipper et al
“Hydroxychloroquine did not substantially reduce symptom severity in outpatients with early, mild COVID-19.”
Mitjà et al.4
“In patients with mild Covid-19, no benefit was observed with HCQ beyond the usual care.”

These three papers.. share at least one common mistake: the conclusions they draw from their data are wrong.

All three papers lead, explicitly2,4 or implicitly 3
, to the conclusion that early treatment of COVID-19 patients with HCQ is not effective.

Display More

Not quite a Wyttenfact. Much more subtle.

You are straining hard to see malpractice. The point is that when studies are under-powered, as will likely be for these "early use" cases which do not normally present, the study provides NO INFORMATION. The English language does not properly distinguish between "absence of evidence" and "evidence of absence". Nor do the quotes above, all of which can be correctly interpreted as absence of evidence.

Why do you need to suppose so many hard-working doctors to be corrupt or fraudulent or (factually) mistaken, working against the interests of their patients? I'm not saying such is impossible, but in my experience it is highly unlikely.

In the case of Boulware we have posted here that he has said, WRT the (inconclusive) 1 or 2 days of exposure data, that a higher powered trial would be interesting to explore this further.

You have also not acknowledged the context here. Doctors are much less interested in a treatment only effective if given within 48 hours of exposure (say) and typically 3 days before symptoms. The number of COVID patients for who that is possibly useful is very limited: specifically health or care workers where there is a known large breach in protection dealing with COVID-positive patients. Do you really think those doing tests should spend time on that instead of looking at possible treatments that can help a large number of COVID patients. Not saying it should not be done, just not a priority.

Now: with that context, I get: not a priority because highly limited use case. You get: these people are incompetent or politically biassed.

Readers can choose. medicine is a pretty soft science, where gut feelings are often used for treatment and tend to be wrong. So it is quite right that doctors often (quite innocently) are biassed. The question here is how we interpret the hard facts to determine which doctors are biassed, and how much. Often the answer is "don't know" and in that case even though in retrospect some will be right, some wrong, it is not fair to attribute any bias.

Quote from Navid

To be definitive:I am saying this tech is well expired based on my interpretation of data and observations, and very few insiders in vaccine science agree with this.

Navid: I've corrected your statement.

In fact, insiders in vaccine science (I'm pretty sure looking from the outside) would say that our understanding of the immune system, and the technology we have available to make effective vaccines, have both advanced enormously. Evidence of that is the 100 or so COVID candidate vaccines developed 10X faster than used to be the case, many using completely new technologies. And there is a strong likelihood of safety, and a good chance of effectiveness, from the Oxford vaccine, using old technology.

You have a number of times claimed that only you (here) properly understand the science, and all others are ignorant or corrupt (in my case perhaps paid?). Well I admit to being quite ignorant. My one skill relevant here is an ability critically to appraise matters discussed in papers where there are publications on both sides of an argument. That requires me to put aside prejudices and compare claims and counter-claims. I've not seen you exercise this skill, nor have I seen you post evidence form the literature in the way i'd expect from somone who had done a thorough literature review.

Canadian doctor affirms HCQ safety and questions unprecedented bureaucratic

efforts to regulate medical practice --

Clinical trials show Hydroxychloroquine is 'safe' with no reported toxicity

John Campbell on HCQ efficacy

convinced by 8000 patient Belgian study

400mg twice on day 1

200mg twice a day from day 2 to 5... total 2400mg over five days

bemused by Oxford Recovery Trial. especailly the overdosing

2000 mg in the first 12 hours..

9,200 mg over 10 days

also bemused by WHO-led SOLIDARITY

https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/...

9600 mg over 10 days

Quote from JedRothwell

The doubts about vaccines are so irrational, and so totally without foundation, that frankly I think they have no place in a discussion group about science. There has to be some reasonable standard for what is an accepted scientific fact. Imagine someone here saying that the Laws of Thermodynamics are a conspiracy foisted on us by the oil companies to prevent the use of perpetual motion machines.

Is it a doubt when we show statistics that conclude a flu vaccine is only 30% effective at the season end?? Happened the last year due to a change of the main vector.

The Ebola vaccine is just 50% effective.

Could you also explain why the 81% of the people in Europe that have a good CoV-19 immunity should get a vaccine? Also the 6% that already had CoV-19?????

Quote from Roseland67

Where you graduated in your class means less than 2 dead flies.

This is true from your perspective as you can always reach your target when you are willing to do so. But "logic" intelligence is definitely needed to understand complex processes. So it is impossible for certain people to become a physicist/Mathematician even if these try hard. But they could never the less be a very good doctor!

But today we see a broad failure in understanding CoV-19 and the inability to make proper decision due to missing logic intelligence. Even worse are people - like some on this forum - that only believe they are brilliant and try to explain stuff to others they don't really grasp. Not to mention the indirectly paid/benefited spin doctors that are only here to white wash the official opinion...

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3676982

Hydroxychloroquine, Parachutes And How to Understand 'The Evidence'

6 Pages Posted: 28 Aug 2020

Michael Keane

Swinburne University of Technology

Date Written: August 19, 2020

Abstract

It is deliberately misleading to make general claims that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work for CoViD-19. It is even more misleading to claim that “the evidence” proves that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work.

To understand this, consider the use of parachutes. Consider someone who claimed that parachutes don’t work to stop death or serious injury when jumping out of a plane. What if they further claimed that “the evidence” proves that parachutes don’t work? Now consider if this same person advocated that because parachutes “don’t work”, we should ban their use and demanded that conscientious pilots who give a parachute to someone jumping out of a plane should lose their pilot’s license. Surely, such claims would be considered false and misleading.

Quote added- no naked links please, Alan.

Quote from sam12

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3676982

Hydroxychloroquine, Parachutes And How to Understand 'The Evidence'

6 Pages Posted: 28 Aug 2020

Michael Keane

Swinburne University of Technology

Date Written: August 19, 2020

Abstract

It is deliberately misleading to make general claims that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work for CoViD-19. It is even more misleading to claim that “the evidence” proves that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work.

To understand this, consider the use of parachutes. Consider someone who claimed that parachutes don’t work to stop death or serious injury when jumping out of a plane. What if they further claimed that “the evidence” proves that parachutes don’t work? Now consider if this same person advocated that because parachutes “don’t work”, we should ban their use and demanded that conscientious pilots who give a parachute to someone jumping out of a plane should lose their pilot’s license. Surely, such claims would be considered false and misleading.

Quote added- no naked links please, Alan.

Display More

Glad to engage with this Sam.

The author's thesis is blindingly obvious and accepted by everyone (as far as i know). however his quoting of the literature is partial:

However, the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) performed to test the effect of hydroxychloroquine have been the equivalent of testing the effect of parachutes in the following circumstances: after a 60 cm jump; or pulling the rip-cord 2 feet above the ground after free-falling; or putting the parachute on someone after they hit the ground.

That is true for some of the studies. The one obvious exception that has already returned results is Boulware. He looked at the drug given between 2 and 4 days after exposure. Since symptoms typically start 5 days after exposure that is before symptoms start. And he found no evidence of HCQ helping. there are other HCQ RCTs looking at early-stage effectiveness, I'm not aware of any results. You'd think if the results were good enough they might have prelim results out by now. If prelim indications inconclusive though you'd expect them to wait for more data before announcing a final "it does not work" or "it works a bit".

You can argue (and Rb and others here argue) that there is evidence for HCQ working given even earlier than this - e.g. 1-2 days after exposure. But it is not secure evidence, and anyway this is not treatment, since most people ask for treatment after they have symptoms, not before.