Covid-19 News


    None of the patient presenting mild symptoms needed to be hospitalized. Only one patient died
    (0.59 % of all included patients vs. 2.1 % overall mortality for the disease in Argentina today; 3.1
    % of hospitalized patients vs. 26.8 % mortality in published data). IDEA protocol appears to be a
    useful alternative to prevent disease progression of COVID-19 when applied to mild cases and to
    decrease mortality in patients at all stages of the disease with a favorable risk-benefit ratio.


    Lou how do these guys know their preferred treatments are effective? Seems to me without some comparison that is unbiassed (= RCT) they cannot have much evidence? I mean, almost all (99%) of early COVID patients recover. That percentage changes by 10X (e.g. 0.3% to 3%) for a change in median age from 30 to 50 etc. many other effects change it too. I'm sure you know that mortality figures vary wildly according to how many people getting milder versions of the disease are counted, how many are treated in hospital (for the hospital mortality figures), etc.


    Comparing local figures - esp when dealing with mild COVID cases - with national ones can mean just that you are treating more people - which you will by definition be doing if you are looking at early-stage cases.


    it is such a shame that when there are possible effective treatments the guys doing this do not provide evidence they work.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Lou how do these guys know their preferred treatments are effective? Seems to me without some comparison that is unbiassed (= RCT) they cannot have much evidence? I mean, almost all (99%) of early COVID patients recover. That percentage changes by 10X (e.g. 0.3% to 3%) for a change in median age from 30 to 50 etc. many other effects change it too. I'm sure you know that mortality figures vary wildly according to how many people getting milder versions of the disease are counted, how many are treated in hospital (for the hospital mortality figures), etc.

    This sounds like reasonable evidence to me:

    (Page 6) "Comparison with other treatments

    Overall mortality rate of patients treated according to IDEA protocol was 0.59 % (1 death in 167 treated cases).

    As a comparison, estimated overall mortality rate in Argentina is approximately 2.1 % (official data by September 2nd, 2020).

    Regarding moderate to severe cases, i.e. patients needing hospitalization, only 1 patient out of 32 receiving IDEA treatment

    died (3.1 %), whereas mortality rate published in articles from Spain, Italy and Spain is ca. 25 %. Moreover, a group of 12

    patients were hospitalized in Eurnekian hospital in the same period but did not receive IDEA treatment. Three of them died,

    thus presenting a mortality rate of 25 %, i.e. significantly higher than that of those receiving IDEA treatment."


    Also note that the moderate-to-severe average age was nearly 60, and that they were using oxygen or ventilated.

    Let's leave the doctor-patient team decide the best course, but who would want to be on the

    placebo arm of an RCT? However, if they do, then they should be allowed.


    Allowing people to choose placebo arm of RCT would invalidate the results. Completely. Allowing them to choose 100% novel treatment or RCT or best standard care would be OK.


    There are many many observational trials which do multivariate logistic regression to separate out the wanted effect from other parameters: comorbidities, age,sex. At least you need to detail all of those parameters, and then see how your mortalities scale with equivalents.


    They are not doing that. It is as though people crediting these results think COVID death rates vary only slightly with other parameters.


    There is no evidence here this treatment does not deliver good results. And no evidence it does. No discussion of statistical significance either. For the death in hospital figures they have only 32 of which one dies, that is (probably? They would need to do the calculation) not a statistically significant difference when compared with 12 and 3 died, expecially when it is an ad hoc comparison not previously registered. (There are always many such ad hoc comparisons that can be made after you have the data, some of which by chance will be very positive).


    Similarly, with only 1 death they would need to work out the statistical significance of the differnece from the national mortality - and in any case that for obvious reasons is a very poor comparator.


    Small individual trials (even if RCT) have a tough time getting good data out, you need a lot of patients if your measure is mortality and 2% die. If your measure is determined by doctors (severity level, or hospitalisation, etc) you need rigorous specified protocols for who you do this to, and even then without masking there is likely bias. Having done that, you then need to control properly for other variables. These people have both small trial and no control of other variables against them. Also you might ask how many such small local trials there are - of which some will deliver positive results by chance and be written up as here. Would you ever write up a negative trial that is unregistered?


    That is why large systematic regsitered methodology determined prior to trial trials like RECOVERY are useful - they have the statistical power (when COVID rates are high) to deliver answers to these questions.


    THH

    Interesting that the director of the CDC saying mask wearing like a vaccine. In the video I posted yesterday the good doctor reasons that the push to wear cloths masks are intended to get to heard ammunity by people taking in smaller viral loads. Crazy but really when you think about it, it's genius

    Quote from Zeus46

    Not groupthink Orange, thats for sure.


    I mean, killing off octogenarians has long been recognised as a formidable military tactic.


    And, who’s gonna buy Chinese goods when our economies are in supposed ruins?

    Covid 19 kills off octogenarians,

    Covid 23 kills off whoever it is engineered to kill off.


    The economy is not in ruins, it is just nowhere near where it used to be.


    People still need goods and services and tho they loathe having to buy them from China, (especially after what China just did to Taiwan, South Korea and Japan), these will still be purchased globally.


    China wins

    Quote from Fm1

    Interesting that the director of the CDC saying mask wearing like a vaccine. In the video I posted yesterday the good doctor reasons that the push to wear cloths masks are intended to get to heard ammunity by people taking in smaller viral loads. Crazy but really when you think about it, it's genius


    LOL. What passes for genius these days is what a 9th grader could know in their basic science project. The WHO was clueless as to what was happening China. Yet, a 9th grader could have opened up the most basic textbook and said "hmm most likely like SARS" and followed the precautions any physician would take. Attached is a snippet from a medical review textbook - the most basic thing any physician should know.





    Yet, January 14th WHO is saying this:



    Yet, Fauci says on January 14th he began the vaccine effort.



    Even Encyclopedia Brown could solve this case folks. This is no accident. These people are criminals.

    Quote from Fm1

    Interesting that the director of the CDC saying mask wearing like a vaccine.


    This fact has been published by German researchers too. We all know that the main infection path is aerosols. Aerosols do pass the cloth/chirurgical masks and typically can act long range (hundreds of meters). The dilution is just the homeopathic dose you need (2-3 times) to develop a permanent immunity.


    But you need enough spreaders - what shows that any form of lock-down is a bad idea and only delays the pandemics.



    Only a truly diabolical figure like Gates could see all of that malnutrition and talk about "the need to vaccinate" everyone as the "solution."

    Clearly, and without a doubt more people are doing to die by magnitudes from economic lockdown then would have ever died from this disease.


    Why not figure out a way with all your billiionaire friends to feed them since someone malnourished doesn't have the immune system to fight a virus very well.

    These people are criminals.


    Quote from Navid

    Only a truly diabolical figure like Gates could see all of that malnutrition and talk about "the need to vaccinate" everyone as the "solution."

    Clearly, and without a doubt more people are doing to die by magnitudes from economic lockdown then would have ever died from this disease.


    This is extremely illogical. Obviously, if we vaccinate everyone, the pandemic will stop, and there will be no need for any more lockdowns. Furthermore, there will be lockdowns whether governments order them or not. Most people are not going to go about their business or go to restaurants at the risk of severe illness or death. We cannot resume normal life until there is a vaccine, or until ~2% of the world population dies to reach herd immunity.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Or claim that Fauci is a criminal. I'm not entirely sure that is even legal.



    It is entirely legal in the U.S. Especially since he is a "public figure."


    It should not be allowed here, in my opinion. Assuming the standards of academic scientific debate apply. I don't know if they do or not.



    It seems to me there is a common set of illogical mistakes behind much of what Navid and other anti-science fanatics here write. It seems to me, they assume:


    1. Vaccines do not work. This step #1 is okay. It is a mistake, but mistakes are okay in a scientific debate.


    2. They assume that Bill Gates and I agree secretly with them, and we also think that vaccines do not work. That is not okay! For one thing, Navid could only know that if he could read our minds, which no one can do. For another, that "assumes bad faith" meaning he thinks Gates and I are lying. People do lie, so that is not out of the question. But our assertions are in line with mainstream views. Millions of people agree with us, including nearly every doctor on earth. So it makes no sense to say we are lying. It would make even less sense to say nearly every doctor on earth is lying. *


    3. Since Navid assumes that Gates secretly agrees with him and the other anti-vaccine people, he looks for a reason why Gates would support vaccination. Navid thinks it cannot be the stated reason that vaccines will stop the pandemic. There has to be some unstated, ulterior motive. Navid comes up with a crazy conspiracy theory to fill in the blank. It seems to me that even if Navid thinks vaccines do not work, it would be more sensible for him to assume that Gates is misguided, and Gates sincerely thinks they do work. Every credible public health organization on earth says they work. Gates (and I) are painfully conventional people. We go along with the mainstream scientific consensus in most cases. It would be out of character if we disagreed.


    Obviously Gates, I and every other educated person knows that mainstream institutions such as the CDC have been wrong from time to time. Everyone knows they botched the testing early in the COVID-19 pandemic. We know that no technology is perfect, and vaccines sometimes cause harm. However, we expect that careful testing will probably prevent harm. We expect that widespread deployment of a vaccine will stop the pandemic. We could be wrong, but we are not nefarious, which is what Navid seems to think.



    * This would be similar to me saying: "The plasma fusion people and other opponents all secretly know that cold fusion is real. They are lying." I am pretty sure most of them do not know it is real. They don't know the first thing about it. If they knew anything, they would come up with more convincing reasons to doubt it. When I look at the detailed published views of the major opponents, I see only a few who knew anything about it, mainly Morrison, Huizenga and Robert Park. Morrison and Huizenga attended conferences and had long discussions with experts. Morrison was stupid, as you see in his papers. Huizenga was smart, but he did not understand the scientific method, as you see in his book, and in Beaudette's review of the book. (See p. 39, https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf) That is not shocking. Many scientists do not understand the scientific method, as you see in the 2004 DoE review. (See https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJresponsest.pdf). I met with Huizenga a couple of times, and discussed this with him. My impression is that he was sincere. More to the point, I would never claim that I can read people's minds. I can never tell whether someone is lying, unless there is some documented proof. Such as . . . a tape recording made by a famous reporter of a leading politician saying the opposite of what he told the public. (No politician would be stupid enough to say such things, so that is an imaginary example.)


    Robert Park is the only one I suspect may have known the truth, and lied about it. I couldn't read his mind. But I have a photo of him eating lunch with David Nagel and Scott Chubb. They met with him several times and briefed him about cold fusion in detail. Yet he kept repeating nonsensical claims about it. He did not say, "the researchers say X but I think Y" or "despite the experimental evidence . . ." He just kept saying outrageous things. He did not seem stupid to me, so I suppose he was lying. But you never know. Stupidity and evil can be difficult to tell apart.


    Huizenga's technical objections to cold fusion were not nonsense. They were technically accurate. Some were right on the mark. His book was worth reading. However, the researchers addressed these issues. His philosophy of science objection, described by Beaudette, was a mistake, in Beaudette's opinion and mine. That is not the same as the technical issues he covered about thing such as neutrons and helium.

    Still no trust in the biochemical evidence for ending this pandemic-I find this extremely depressing with all the emphasis on futile testing and vaccine research-neither of which are benefitting anybody. Now everybody is trying to get back to normal here in the UK schools back, University students returning all over the country, the virus will spread like wildfire throughout the population. If the resources had been diverted into following up all the early research leads on biochemical agents such as the S-isomer of hydroxychloroquine being far more effective than the other isomers, purified by Pfizer for instance and released as a general cure for the illness along with ivermectin, Zn, Avigen and all the rest of the known biochemical agents effectve against COVID we would be getting somewhere. As it is this plague is with us for years now unless attitudes change.

    Quote from Dr Richard

    As it is this plague is with us for years now unless attitudes change.


    This sounds like you are reprimanding children. Criminality doesn't care about your reprimand. They know all of this (hcq, ivermecting). They ignore all of what you are saying, and they will lie in your face if you ever speak to them (e.g. Fauci). I think you know this but you want to give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe x, or maybe y or whatever.

    Quote from Dr Richard

    Still no trust in the biochemical evidence for ending this pandemic-I find this extremely depressing with all the emphasis on futile testing and vaccine research-neither of which are benefitting anybody.


    You mean you have no trust. Perhaps you should acknowledge that every expert disagrees with you.


    Per my discussion above, your statement is fine for an academic discussion. It is wrong, but you are not claiming "the authorities are lying" or anything like that. However, I think it would be good form for you to say, "contrary to expert opinion, I think . . ."



    Quote from Navid

    This sounds like you are reprimanding children. Criminality doesn't care about your reprimand. They know all of this (hcq, ivermecting). They ignore all of what you are saying, and they will lie in your face if you ever speak to them (e.g. Fauci). I


    That, on the other hand, is mind reading. Navid cannot read Fauci's mind. He has no way of knowing that Fauci does not sincerely believe what he says. He has no reason to think that Fauci, Gates or I secretly agree with him. Navid would have to find some incriminating document, tape recording, or other evidence in which Fauci says, "vaccines don't work, and we are doing this to enslave humanity" or some such thing.

    The do nothing status quo seems to be defended by experts in Brazil too..with ivermectin


    An interesting account from Alan Cannell , a UK engineer in Brazil


    "Meanwhile, on the left bank of the Amazon River, the COVID-19 Medical Committee of the State of Amapá opted in May to treat patients with a combination of the drugs Azithromycin and Ivermectin, which had been tested on the team’s doctor, her relatives and a group of 40 patients – all with positive results.

    The Committee stressed that this is not a protocol for the entire population, but a preventive mechanism

    for those who are at risk or have had contact with a possible carrier.

    The results seemed promising, yet the reaction of the establishment was stunningly negative.

    As an example, a specialist from the Brazilian Society of Infectology claimed during a video conference

    hosted by a well-known journalist that:

    “personal experiences are a horror show in terms of evidence,

    there may be other factors such as the intensity of the virus or that it didn’t affect vulnerable groups”

    https://www.trialsitenews.com/…in-three-brazilian-towns/

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.