The only one saying this is the worst pandemic in 100 years are you and the media. This pandemic looks more and more like 57 and 68..by the way dr fucci said Trump did just as his medical experts told him.
Covid-19 News
- Alan Smith
- Closed
-
-
Agreed. We need to talk about over-consumption of conspiracy theories as possible root cause.
Which came first though, the chicken or the egg? Will ‘Conspiracy Theory Disorder’ be added to DSM soon? This chap seems to think so:
https://psychcentral.com/blog/…nding-why-people-believe/
Quote from Fm1Trump played down the virus as did Eisenhower and nixon trying to turn it over to the medical community, as done during previous pandemics.
Well Eisenhower makes it to the first page of this report, titled “Misguided Responses To Public Health Emergencies” (2016).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7123304/
However, this woman talking about COVID is supposedly a doctor, so her views about germs are directly applicable.
She’s an ‘MD’ in the same way Santilli is both a ‘sir’ and a ‘professor’. (ie. Only by her own proclamation)
-
Pot, kettle, black, Old Beaut. Implying that anyone who disregards your nonsense is stupid, or a criminal, or a child, or a sheep, are personal attacks in themselves.
I didnt' take you face and post it. We can see you get very vindictive. And slip around - trying to stir and steer debate by manipulating other people.
Since you think you are the big man on campus, why don't you tell us who you are, real name and credentials.
Since you obviously are
a) an erudite professional
b) happy to speak about personal affairs
-
Well Eisenhower makes it to the first page of this report, titled “Misguided Responses To Public Health Emergencies” (2016).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7123304/
Zeus, pulled this from new York times arcives
Doesn't quite jive with what the government website is saying now hummmmmmmmm what to make of this, a new conspiriacy???l navid where are you???
-
The only one saying this is the worst pandemic in 100 years are you and the media.
It is common knowledge this is the worst pandemic since 1918. That is what every history book says, and what CDC, and every other public health organization in the world says. Heck, even the White House people say this. The media and I are quoting them. We don't make this stuff up.
This pandemic looks more and more like 57 and 68..
In the same sense a Mac truck looks like a Volkswagon. Those pandemics killed 1 million worldwide and ~100,000 in the U.S. This one will probably kill 2 million worldwide and 300,000 in the U.S. Please note: 300,000 > 100,000.
-
Those pandemics killed 1 million worldwide and ~100,000 in the U.S. This one will probably kill 2 million worldwide and 300,000 in the U.S.
In addition (if you need more than a few 1,000,000 deaths) the after-effects for those seriously ill and recovered are a lot worse for this one than for Flu pandemics, because the cytokine storm (bradykinin blah blah...) stuff attacks other organs in the body and can leave them permanently damaged, not just lungs as for Flu.
-
I didnt' take you face and post it.
No, you took your own face, then posted it to the public domain. So if you don't wish to be memed, perhaps stop being so meme-worthy? ..."don't google this"- Sheesh!!
As for my credentials, I've said here before that if one needs to wave them about, they must be making very weak arguments.* What I write stands on its own. Either refute it if counterfactual, or mock it if idiotic. Don't whine about it though - You are, after all, a grown man.
And sorry, but I use the same moniker on another forum that I really don't want associating to me, for both professional and legal reasons.** Fortunately Google doesn't seem to archive that site's forums - currently - but why take the chance?
(Also, I don't want a paranoid loon coming after me, but that, I can assure you, is a secondary concern).
* Right before waving around my doctorate in mechanical engineering.
** Nope, I'm not this guy, who seems to be on several sex sites. Or the dingbat trolling Abd on reddit.
-
Close to 1,000,000 dead. That's how bad it is.
That is approximately how many people died in 1958 and 1968, worldwide. However COVID-19 is not over yet, so more than 1 million will surely die. COVID-19 is much worse in developed countries than the 1958 and 1968 pandemics. See:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandem…s/1957-1958-pandemic.html
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandem…ources/1968-pandemic.html
There has been progress in medical science since 1968, so we should expect fewer deaths, all else being equal. A pandemic that kills 100,000 people today is worse than one that killed 100,000 people in 1968.
-
** Nope, I'm not this guy, who seems to be on several sex sites.
You're not him?!? I am disappointed. I was hoping you would tell us more about . . . about . . . Well, just more.
Or the dingbat trolling Abd on reddit.
Pretending to be you? Or him? That's hilarious too. Unless it is bothering him.
So many surprises in the 21st century. Stuff no one predicted, not even Arthur Clarke.
-
Display More
No, you took your own face, then posted it to the public domain. So if you don't wish to be memed, perhaps stop being so meme-worthy? ..."don't google this"- Sheesh!!
As for my credentials, I've said here before that if one needs to wave them about, they must be making very weak arguments.* What I write stands on its own. Either refute it if counterfactual, or mock it if idiotic. Don't whine about it though - You are, after all, a grown man.
And sorry, but I use the same moniker on another forum that I really don't want associating to me, for both professional and legal reasons.** Fortunately Google doesn't seem to archive that site's forums - currently - but why take the chance?
(Also, I don't want a paranoid loon coming after me, but that, I can assure you, is a secondary concern).
* Right before waving around my doctorate in mechanical engineering.
** Nope, I'm not this guy, who seems to be on several sex sites. Or the dingbat trolling Abd on reddit.
You take a special interest in other peoples personal details, trying to label them crazy or conspiracy theorists. You rarely respond to facts, or you just spam the board with a link about why you think someone is crazy. You also are happy to freely lie - and nobody has the time or inclination to fix your lies (e.g. the physician referenced earlier doesn't have an MD etc)
You have taken my likeness and contorted as a form of mockery.
You may be breaking the law. I will talk to the board admins.
-
To many dilettantes do studies of all kinds. Just the first issue: People who get HCQ without having CoV-19 are obviously sick or persons at risk. To treat them as a cohort is more than fringe.
A pure sign of idiots behavior is to again post a study that just looks at HCQ, what nobody ever did recommend!
Why are proven dilettantes not able to distinguish prophylaxis after showing symptoms with prophylaxis in general ??
Wyttenbach: it only makes you look bad when you insult me, since your grasp of these matters, as judged by attention to detail, is worse even than that of the dilettante.
First thing. Prophylaxis after symptoms show is normally called treatment. Boulware, famously discussed here, showed results negative for days 3,4 after exposure, and possibly positive for days 1,2 after exposure (but not statistically significant unless you cherry-pick curve to fit). Sinvce symptoms are typically 5 days after exposure this is all about pre-symptom prophylaxis.
The study I linked, and that you have still not got to grips with (you should, it might give you new info) is pre-symptom, like Boulware, and also pre-exposure. It is thus the "best" possible case for prophylaxis. It includes the suggested idea that HCQ works as very early post-exposure treatment in days 1,2. Since HCQ takes time to build up a prophylatic dose before treatment is significant if continued for 6 months as here. we can argue details of dosing and pharmacokinetics if you like.
So if HCQ works as prophylaxis, which it might, this study should pick it up.
The cohort used is all of those having RA or SLE. These are "at risk" in the sense that they have a 19% higher mortality from COVID than the general population. That is a small amount: males are "at risk" relative to females by 100%. An extra 2 years of age puts somone this much more at risk.
But in any case what you need to understand (and avoid Wyttenfacting on) is that this study compared RA/SLE sufferers on HCQ (for pain relief) with RA/SLE sufferers NOT on HCQ (for pain relief). If HCQ has a significant prophylatic effect, as many here have claimed, it should show up in lower mortality for the with HCQ group relative to the without HCQ group.
As always, there are possible confounding factors, many of which have been compensated, but this evidence is a good deal stronger than that which has been posted positive on HCQ, and it is interesting.
A dilettante who tries to pay attention to details...
THH
-
in other peoples personal details, trying to label them crazy or conspiracy theorists.
Navid, all Z needs to label crazygirl (5G, Gates causes COVID, germs are not real) here a conspiracy theorist is her weird self-avowed views. Much the easiest way to do it.
-
First thing. Prophylaxis after symptoms show is normally called treatment.
Please stop brabbling! You never will learn/understand the basics. Symptoms usually are shared among illnesses and if you start to treat somebody without strongly indicating symptoms ( a set of them!!) this is called Prophylaxis! or prophylactic treatment.
Your personal habits of teaching others about things you don't understand is a serious sign of borderline! Look for a treatment!
-
this is called Prophylaxis!
a common medical term for this is PEP.. post exposure prophylaxis..
useful for some viral infections
but not useful for ignorance.
External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy. -
Fm1 Cannabis sativa is probably just as effective as Nigella sativa - but do have the occasional gin and tonic too, or one of my favorites is tonic water with a small drop of absinthe - which is completely decadent if it can be afforded and you only need a few ml compared to a large slug of whisky or other spirits. Might as well enjoy ourselves as the ship goes down!
-
Lies, (e.g. the physician referenced earlier doesn't have an MD etc)
Fair enough, you are correct, she is an MD, which apparently means anyone who graduates from a medical school. I had assumed a person needs to be certified by a medical board to call themselves that. Similar to a chartered engineer.
Note that despite her claims to be certified by three different medical boards, she was actually lying about all three.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/…-coronavirus-conspiracies
You have taken my likeness and contorted as a form of mockery.
You may be breaking the law.
Don’t be silly, you contorted it yourself. Also, you might want to spend a little time visiting some legal websites, instead of those conspiracy ones. Internationally, copyright laws state that parody is classed as fair use - and there’s mountains of case law to back that up.
-
Navid, you seem to think you can freely post on a public forum, without receiving any criticism in return. You basically wish to deny others the rights that you claim for yourself.
Sure, you might not like the form the criticism comes in, but lets face it, 90% of the stuff you post is so wacky that its hard to offer any criticism of it on a sensible level.
-
Early HCQ results from analysis of ~5500 patient visits to ambulatory care..Saudi Arabia
"CONCLUSION: Early intervention with HCQ-based therapy in patients with mild to moderate symptoms at presentation is associated with lower adverse clinical outcomes among COVID-19 patients,
including hospital admissions, ICU admission, and/or death.
-
a common medical term for this is PEP.. post exposure prophylaxis..
useful for some viral infections
Rhetoric is one thing, ignoring facts is another.
I referred to post-exposure, pre-symptom prophylaxis - what Boulware looked at.
You are calling post-symptom treatment prophylaxis which you can only do as a special case not particularly relevant here.
And my argument, which neither you nor the Wyttenbach have addressed, stands, regardless of a discussion about what should or should not be called prophylaxis.
May I respectfully suggest that you address the content of my arguments, instead of ignoring them and insulting me?
