Covid-19 News

Quote from Fm1

Another study linking vitamin D deficenccy to covid 19 . No rtc's but as more study's are done they all seem to link covid infection to vitamin D deficenccy. My question, why is the media ignoring these study's .

The media is not ignoring this. It has been widely reported, in every major media outlet I follow.

Quote from Shane D.

Yes, interesting. Jed also linked to a NYT's article where...9 months into the pandemic, the media is suddenly taking notice that the cure may actually be worse than the disease.

The media has not been ignoring this, either. Right from the start, the New York Times and other mainstream outlets have reported on the damage caused by lockdowns and other extreme measures. Even before the first death in the U.S., the NYT had a long article discussing this, and discussing the effects of the lockdown in China.

The first NYT article discussing this pros and cons of a lockdown that I recall is here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0…ronavirus-quarantine.html

There have been countless others. The mass media has given people on both sides of this debate lots of coverage. As it should, since both sides have valid points. However, I think the anti-lockdown people have overlooked an essential point. Whether the government imposes a lockdown or not, people will lock themselves down, out of fear. Fear and common sense. A fast food meal or a trip to the bowling alley is not worth a week of fever, or two weeks in the hospital, or death.

In Georgia the governor and others have done all they can to avoid lockdowns, mainly by forcing poor people in places like restaurants and bowling alleys to go back to work or lose unemployment benefits. The governor has done all he can to discourage the use of masks and prevent mandates, threatening lawsuits against cities that try to impose them. He has hidden the data, so no one knows which hospitals, nursing homes or districts are dangerous and how necessary (or unnessary) a lockdown is. He has done this by lying about casualties, by charging the newspapers thousands of dollars for public information, and then blanking out all of the data. In other words, the government has done all it can to avoid a lockdown, to hide the facts, and spread the disease

Yet Georgia remains locked down in many ways. The damage is a great as it would be if the state policy was to lock things down. Or if the government policy was to provide accurate information instead of lies.

Nothing but facts all available on google, at least for now

Heart diisease- 655,000 deaths per year in the united states alone

Diabetes- 79,000 deaths per year in the U.S alone

Cancer- 606,520 deaths per year in the US alone

Kidney disease 50,633 deaths per year in the US alone along with over 500,000 on daily dialysis

Liver disease- over 2 million deaths per year worldwide

Lung disease- over 3 million deaths per year worldwide

All facts!!! Where is the outrage???

Another fact that some here won't like, All have a direct affect from vitamin D deficenccy. GOD HELP US, cause science sure the hell isn't!!!

Quote from Fm1

Heart diisease- 655,000 deaths per year in the united states alone

Diabetes- 79,000 deaths per year in the U.S alone

Cancer- 606,520 deaths per year in the US alone

Kidney disease 50,633 deaths per year in the US alone along with over 500,000 on daily dialysis

Liver disease- over 2 million deaths per year worldwide

Lung disease- over 3 million deaths per year worldwide

All facts!!! Where is the outrage???

Display More

There is no outrage because these are not infectious diseases that might have been prevented or greatly reduced. Medical science and public health measures cannot greatly reduce cancer, whereas they can reduce COVID-19.

Other countries have roughly similar per capita levels of liver disease, cancer and these other diseases. COVID-19 infected every country, but some countries such as Japan, Korea and Greece responded with effective public health measures. They kept the number patients and total deaths between 10 and 100 times lower than the U.S. That is why there is outrage about COVID-19 but not these other diseases.

There should be some degree of outrage -- or at least, concern -- about diabetes in the U.S. because much of it is caused by obesity, and obesity can be reduced with better food choices, diets and exercise. It is partly the fault of the food industry. But mostly the fault of individual patients, in my opinion. People bring it on themselves, just as they give themselves cancer by smoking. People also bring COVID-19 on themselves by not wearing masks or going to crowded bars. To a very limited extent, some patients are to blame for taking risks. Mainly, the high infection rate and the high death rate in the U.S. is the fault of the Federal government and state governments in places like Georgia. Nations and U.S. states that responded correctly have much lower rates of disease and mortality.

Quote from Fm1

Another fact that some here won't like, All have a direct affect from vitamin D deficenccy. GOD HELP US, cause science sure the hell isn't!!!

This is nonsense. "Science" discovered that vitamin D may help. This was reported in medical journals and the mass media immediately. A mechanism that might explain it was discovered and published by a U.S. National Laboratory. NO ONE ANYWHERE is suppressing this information. No one "won't like it." That is preposterous. If it turns out that vitamin D has significant benefits, most doctors will soon use it.

It may be that it does not have benefits. Or they are limited to a certain group of patients. Doctors and researchers will soon find out.

Doctors and researchers are doing the best they can to reduce the severity and mortality from COVID-19. They have greatly reduced it in first world countries, by ~30% according to some reports. Several new drugs and techniques have been introduced, such as equipment to maintain breathing without tubes. They are not going to hide news of effective remedies.

Quote from JedRothwell

There is no outrage because these are not infectious diseases that might have been prevented or greatly reduced. Medical science and public health measures cannot greatly reduce cancer, whereas they can reduce COVID-19.

Other countries have roughly similar per capita levels of liver disease, cancer and these other diseases. COVID-19 infected every country, but some countries such as Japan, Korea and Greece responded with effective public health measures. They kept the number patients and total deaths between 10 and 100 times lower than the U.S. That is why there is outrage about COVID-19 but not these other diseases.

There should be some degree of outrage -- or at least, concern -- about diabetes in the U.S. because much of it is caused by obesity, and obesity can reduced with better food choices, diets and exercise. It is partly the fault of the food industry. But mostly the fault of individual patients, in my opinion. People bring it on themselves, just as they give themselves cancer by smoking. People also bring COVID-19 on themselves by not wearing masks or going to crowded bars. To a very limited extent, some patients are to blame for taking risks. Mainly, the high infection rate and the high death rate in the U.S. is the fault of the Federal government and state governments in places like Georgia. Nations and U.S. states that responded correctly have much lower rates of disease and mortality.

Jed you miss the point Proper levels of vitamin D in all these disease could very well lead to much lower overall cases. Again obesity is connected to vitamn D deficenccy. I asked you in confidence to look into this and you begged out saying your not in schooled in medicine. That sir is nothing more than a copout. I've lost some respect for you. By the way vitamn D is essential to good metabolism. Google it and educate yourself

Quote from Wyttenbach

Dear spin doctor which facts are wrong??

Calling me a spin doctor is wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth. I gives my views backed by facts, and where they are uncertain I say that. No spin. I think however it must be projection from you, see below

Quote from Wyttenbach

It is easy to show that 99.9% of these RCT studies have severe deficiencies

That is wrong. You have nowhere evidenced that figure of 99.9%. It is pure spin. In fact not only have you no quantitative evidence, but the issues you raise do not comprise severe deficiencies. It is possible to choose RCT samples in such a way as to reduce bias, increases heterogeneity,, etc. the beauty of an RCT is that you can select the sample as you like, such selection cannot bias the results as long as the comparison is randomised.

In addition, when I pointed out above why you were wrong you did not refute my point, but instead personally attacked me, and asked me (again) to demonstrate why you were wrong. I'm not sure that is spin but it does show lack of attention to arguments.

Quote from Wyttenbach

he RCT for V-D is here since more than ten years.

Spin again, because you do not reference it, nor summarise its (largely negative) results.

There have been multiple RCTs (though from time you specify I suspect you mean VITAL).

https://jamanetwork.com/journa…cle/2755297?resultClick=1

Sorry - it is paywalled, but a good summary of RCT and other Vitamin D evidence from 2019 (obviously, not relating to COVID). Extracts below.

Not long ago, vitamin D was riding high. Beyond its role in calcium homeostasis and bone health, animal studies linked vitamin D deficiency to numerous chronic illnesses including hypertension, diabetes, autoimmunity, and malignancy.¹ Corroborating human observational studies reported associations between vitamin D deficiency and increased risks of hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, autoimmunity, and cancer.² The lay press seized on this chorus of observational studies, testing of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels proliferated, and supplementation with cholecalciferol (vitamin D₃) and ergocalciferol (vitamin D₂) increased substantially.³

Then came the randomized clinical trials.

Multiple trials have failed to demonstrate significant benefits of vitamin D supplementation. For example, vitamin D supplementation, compared with placebo, failed to reduce systolic blood pressure in patients with prehypertension and stage 1 hypertension.⁴ High-dose monthly oral vitamin D₃, compared with placebo, did not reduce risk of incident cardiovascular disease or death.⁵ In the Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes (D2d) trial, vitamin D supplementation, compared with placebo, failed to lower risk of incident type 2 diabetes in patients with prediabetes.⁶

The largest vitamin D trial was the Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL), a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of 25 871 participants.⁷ Using a 2 × 2 factorial design, VITAL tested whether supplementation with cholecalciferol, 2000 IU/d, and the omega-3 fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid, 1 g/d, would reduce risk of cancer and the composite cardiovascular outcome of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death compared with placebo. During a median follow-up of 5.3 years, neither vitamin D supplementation nor omega-3 fatty acid supplementation was significantly better than placebo.

In this issue of JAMA, de Boer et al report the results of the VITAL-DKD study, ...

Then came the randomized clinical trials.

One randomized placebo-controlled trial (coincidentally also called VITAL; n = 281 patients) suggested modest antiproteinuric effects of the activated vitamin D analog paricalcitol when added to blockers of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and CKD.¹¹ Other randomized placebo-controlled trials (range, 60-227 patients) found no beneficial effects of paricalcitol on left ventricular structure and function in patients with non–dialysis-dependent CKD.^12,13 In ESKD, a placebo-controlled clinical trial reported no benefit of another activated form of vitamin D on cardiovascular outcomes in 976 Japanese patients without secondary hyperparathyroidism.¹⁴ Although no well-powered clinical trial has tested whether vitamin D₂ or D₃, exogenous 25-hydroxyvitamin D, or 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D or its analogs can slow CKD progression to ESKD, the totality of published trial data offer little support for parathyroid hormone–independent benefits of correcting deficiencies in the vitamin D axis in patients along the spectrum of CKD. Furthermore, no clinical trials have investigated whether the vitamin D repletion strategies that are widely used by nephrologists to specifically treat secondary hyperparathyroidism reduce fracture risk or improve other clinical outcomes in patients with CKD and ESKD.

The VITAL-DKD study reported in this issue of JAMA⁸ and the recently reported D2d trial⁶ provide strong clinical trial–grade evidence against meaningful kidney-protective effects of routine vitamin D₃ supplementation in the vast majority of patients with prediabetes or established type 2 diabetes, but do not completely preclude future investigation of vitamin D and CKD outcomes. The VITAL-DKD study population had nearly normal mean 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels at baseline, leaving open the question of whether the results would have differed had recruitment been restricted to patients with moderate or severe vitamin D deficiency. The post hoc subgroup analysis of patients with lower baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels (<20 and 20-30 ng/mL) suggested nonsignificant benefits of vitamin D supplementation, raising the possibility of conducting a new and sufficiently powered trial restricted to this subpopulation. However, given the known benefits of vitamin D on skeletal health, it would be ethically challenging to randomize patients known to be vitamin D deficient to receive placebo for the duration needed to assess effects on CKD outcomes. Another open question is whether vitamin D supplementation might be beneficial for patients with more advanced CKD or more severe albuminuria at baseline. Without certainty about the ideal approach to vitamin D treatment in advanced CKD, a randomized trial that compared cholecalciferol, exogenous 25-hydroxyvitamin D, and an activated vitamin D analogue vs placebo could definitively lay to rest multiple remaining questions in the area.

In the meantime, contrasting the results of VITAL-DKD and its predecessor vitamin D trials with the impressive body of epidemiological research that implicated vitamin D deficiency in various adverse health outcomes offers a stark lesson on the chasm between association and causation. It now seems safe to conclude that many prior epidemiological associations between vitamin D deficiency and adverse health outcomes were driven by unmeasured residual confounding or reverse causality. For many of the chronic conditions previously mapped to vitamin D deficiency, their preclinical stages likely contributed to the vitamin D deficiency that subsequently “predicted” onset of overt clinical disease in observational studies rather than vice versa. For example, decreased physical activity due to illness could reduce sunlight-mediated vitamin D production, alterations in diet could reduce vitamin D intake, and subclinical reductions in kidney function could induce significant changes in vitamin D regulation due to subclinical increases in fibroblast growth factor 23. With each new and carefully conducted negative trial of vitamin D supplementation, the Institute of Medicine’s 2010-2011 report that emphasized the bone benefits of attaining sufficient vitamin D stores over other theoretical benefits based on observational data looks ever more prescient.¹⁵

Note for this thread. Vitamin D as something that might help the immune system (it certainly affects it) has not so thoroughly been tested, and its exact utility tehre remains open. But beware the many positive correlational results. For the same reasons as above they may be illusory. COVID however offers Vit D another chance to redeem itself. There is a plausible mechanism for it to downregulate bradykinin, and for that to help severe COVID. Whether Vit D helps in early-stage reaction to COVID is unclear, it alters the natural immune system by up and down regulating different classes of T and other cells. we have one interesting RCT (but underpowered given the not balanced cohorts) that delivers positive results. That and a plausible mechanism is enough for Vit D to look possible as a way of reducing severe COVID symptoms.

OK, so that is not the "miracle cure" that we would all like. Nor is it the "miracle cure" that some claim for Ivermectin and/or HCQ on little (no?) evidence.

I'm just wondering where this attachment to non-controlled (not even observational retrospective controlled) evidence comes from. it is obviously unreliable because you can pick out any number of positive and negative examples. The reason it is unreliable is mathematically obvious. And teh fact that everyone (including front-line doctors) would like to have a miracle cure means that anything that might be that gets its fan club - without RCT evidence the advocates could be right. As with HCQ it could work better with Zinc, AZT, many other things. It could work better as an early stage anti-viral. testing all possible permutations of these things for any drug is difficult, and nothing can be ruled out till that is done. HCQ has the disadvantage that it is political now, meaning that bad evidence (on both sides) is often elevated.

OK, so I've noted that these posts of mine here get few likes, and that certain vociferous members here view me as being incompetent, politically motivated, somehow spinning things. I'm sorry for that, and since I've no wish to disturn RB and Wyttenbach and Dr. Ricjhard I'll keep quite on the subject of HCQ now unless the situation changes (e.g. some use case has plausible positive evidence, if there is such i will be happy, as i am for any positive evidence for COVID treatments). You may take it that if I'm still posting here and ignore info on HCQ (or ivermectin - which seems to be in the same position of "hoped for miracle" but with much less evidence against, because much less evidence altogether) it is because I don't want to repeat myself making negative comments.

I would just point out that the many people here disagreeing with me and therefore calling me names do not exercise the same restraint and repeat their arguments many times, with (poor quality) study after study, repeated memes, etc.

THH

Quote from Bob#2

There is no reason for Vit. D not being encouraged. It has many positive benefits even aside from Covid.

Quote from Bob#2

Certainly more than the "magical 6 foot" distancing order!

Positive benefits of Vit D other than COVID have been shown to be pretty limited - bit there is no harm in taking it and most people are deficient nowadays so a good idea. Just don't expect it to be a miracle cure (thus far it is not ruled out as a good treatment for severe COVID - we will have more evidence soon).

6 foot distancing - we are gradually getting to grips with how COVID is transmitted. latest ideas (and they fit all facts to my knowledge);

(1) it is in practice pretty fragile, more so than most viruses. Or maybe it just needs a higher initial dose, not sure. Surface contact transmission is possible but not that common in typical situations.

(2) airbourne - droplets, from speaking, coughing, etc. Mostly they do not reach more than 6 feet. Obviously the longer the better. Anyway that is good reason for 6 feet, or 4 feet, depending on level of risk and other things like are there masks. Also good reason for masks which catch some of the bigger droplets, and divert them from being ejected in the direction of somone you are facing.

(3) airbourne - aerosols. That is very fine mist that cannot be seen and stays in the air. Masks do not so much help. Maybe they catch some of the vapour that would otherwise go into the air and evaporate - leaving aerosols, so perhaps they do help quite a bit? This is where things have changed. Spreader events make it pretty clear now that tiny particles that stay in air for long time can transmit COVID. You need enough dose - and it is more than one particle. So outside is good, better ventilation is good, reducing number of people in room is good, staying in a contaminated room for a longer time increases the risk: 100 minutes 100X the dose of 1 minute.

(4) Certainly low enough doses do not transmit COVID. Some evidence that just the right low level dose might be protective, but we don't know and it may well be irrelevant because only a very marrow range 9just below what would transmit) would protect. We do not know.

(5) The above is still a bit uncertain - but more accurate than we had at the start, and the best we have. It would be foolish to ignore it.

You can be annoyed because this info contradicts earlier ideas that aerosols were unlikely a problem. That is science for you, when you have something new you keep on observing it and alter ideas as needed. And if you expected initial ideas to be all correct that was silly. If you think we can't work out the amin transmission routed after 6 months of effort that is also silly.

I'm not getting into the political stuff except to say that there are many political decisions about lockdown or no - and science does not answer them. We don't yet know whether Sweden (no lockdown, lots of social distancing) looks clever or stupid - at the moment the scales are tipping towards clever. Politicians should make the political decisions but leave the science to those who are spending their time working on it not their time thinking about re-election. Horses for courses.

But,, if you deny the scientific best effort evidence because "powerful people are telling you what to think" and you don't like it then that is shooting yourself (and, indirectly, everyone else) in the foot.

THH

There is a dramatic difference between U.S. states in the number of cases and deaths. New York and Florida have about the same populations (19 and 21 million). New York's response was disastrous at first. Cases peaked at 9,800 per day. It still has the highest total number of deaths, 33,000. But, in mid-April, the government began to implement the steps recommended by the W.H.O. and other public health organizations in February, such as wearing masks, case tracing and quarantine. The number of cases fell dramatically. By June it was down to ~900 per day. Deaths fell to 25 per day, and for the last three months they have been around 8 per day. So, there is no doubt the W.H.O. methods work. Here is the data for New York. The same pattern can be seen in other states that have implemented the recommendations, except California.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/new-york/

In contrast, Florida and Georgia ignored these recommendations, and still have not effectively implemented them. I do not know the situation in Florida, but in Georgia the governor and other officials has actively sabotaged them, by ridiculing masks; by forcing vulnerable, at risk poor people back to work, and by not implementing anywhere near enough testing, case tracking or quarantines. Cases in Florida were low at first, then they went out of control, and finally began to fall in August. But they are still at 2,800 per day, 3 times higher than New York. Deaths are still at ~100 per day, 12 times more than New York. That means ~90 people a day are dying in Florida who could be saved. They are dying because the government is negligent. It does not implement steps that other states and other countries implemented 5 months ago. These might have saved 10,000 lives in Florida and many thousands of lifelong critical injuries. Florida was given the chance to learn from the mistakes in Italy and New York, but they did nothing.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/florida/

The same is true of the U.S. as a whole. Some number of people were certain to die. But, looking at other countries, it might have been ~5,000 instead of 200,000 now, and ~300,000 by the end of the year. After that, let us hope a vaccine becomes available and the nightmare begins to recede. Hundreds of thousands of people have died in vain, because our federal and state governments failed us. They did not fulfill their most important responsibility, to protect the lives of citizens. If elected politicians were doctors, they would be guilty of malpractice leading to death, or perhaps even negligent homicide.

(Of course some individual patients are also to blame, such as people who refuse to wear masks. There is plenty of blame to go around.)

Quote from Fm1

Jed you miss the point Proper levels of vitamin D in all these disease could very well lead to much lower overall cases.

I did not miss the point. If that is true, it will soon be common knowledge among doctors and they will act upon it.

There have been instances in medical history in which effective therapies have not been implemented. In fact, this happened with vitamin D. Rickets disease is caused by vitamin D deficiency. It was endemic in the U.S. south for decades, even after this was discovered, because of politics and racism. It was not the fault of medical researchers or doctors in general, although of course the doctors in the south were at fault!

Today, masks are not being implemented in the U.S. because of politics. You cannot blame the researchers or doctors.

Quote from Fm1

I asked you in confidence to look into this and you begged out saying your not in schooled in medicine.

Why should I look into it? I am no doctor and I do not understand medical science enough to judge the issue. It is not my responsibility. The people who should look into it are doing so, judging by mass media reports and studies conducted at U.S. national labs and elsewhere. They are onto it. If vitamin D helps, it will be used.

It seems I haven't been clear in my vitamin D posts. Although I have read in a few publications and only once on the national TV news that some positive results concerning Vitamin D treatment for covid, I'm posting information on vitamn D as a preventive treatment for viral infection. The holy grail for medicine is immortality. The human body is designed with everything you need to fight off any virus no matter how infectious. Through proper diet, a balanced body pH. The sun provides the vitamins not produced by the body. The sun has a cycle. A minimum and a maximum. During the last maximum nasa found in the last 3 years that the sun was producing less and less sunspots. Nasa also confirmed we entered a solar minimum in 2019. Flu season arrives Evey year from October to April in the northern hemisphere. Less sun more people D deficant. A study I posted earlier pointed out that the pandemics of the 20th century fell during or within 5 months of a solar minimum. I follow the dots, I admit I may be wrong but observational evidence points to the absolute value of vitamin D. People claiming little evidence for the effects of vitamn D are only looking at inconclusive study's that show a positive effect but claim it's limited. Down the road when some expert finally puts this all together, vitamin D will be hailed as the most essential vitamin in the body. At least I hope!!!! Other wise THH I'd be the shit starter.

Quote from THHuxleynew

We don't yet know whether Sweden (no lockdown, lots of social distancing) looks clever or stupid

Of course we know. Look at the mortality rate. Per capita deaths. It was the highest in Europe when they engaged in that policy. It has come down because they have de facto lockdowns like the rest of Europe. Their economy has suffered as much as any other country in Europe. The policy was a disaster. Almost as bad as the anti-science insanity here in Georgia.

Look at the numbers: Sweden, 580 deaths, 8700 cases per million. Korea 8 deaths, 448 cases. (The U.S. is a disgrace with 616 deaths, 21,000 cases, and no end in sight, unlike Sweden which finally dealt with the problem.)

A full lockdown was never needed in places like Korea or Japan, because they did the other things the W.H.O. called for: testing, tracing and quarantine. A lockdown should not have been needed anywhere, except Wuhan, before these other methods could be implemented. Before the computer programs could be written. The Koreans jumped onto it and did exactly what was needed, so they avoided a lockdown. A lockdown is a defeat. It means you failed to do the right things, so you must resort to brute-force, inefficient steps that slow down the disease but also destroy the economy and cause widespread suffering for other reasons.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Positive benefits of Vit D other than COVID have been shown to be pretty limited

?? Sometimes it is statements like this that cause such an adverse reaction. Perhaps I have misunderstood?

You make it sound as if Vit. D is of barely any importance!

Yet some countries have mandated laws that it MUST be added to milk, such as Canada and Sweden. In the US all consumer milk has vitamin D added.... millions of gallons! Is this because it is not of much importance or of limited value? Just the opposite and it is common knowledge!

Per Mayo clinic https://www.mayoclinic.org/dru…ts-vitamin-d/art-20363792

Vitamin D is essential to Bone growth and bone maintenance. Rickets is caused without it, or more likely at least.

They also state research that indicates Vitamin D in Cancer prevention and Cognitive health among others.

It is important to the immune system and other critical systems.

Vitamin D is indeed extremely beneficial, not limited, actually essential and I would think this commonly known and understood. So my thoughts about your statement of how some here perceive your posts are somewhat highlighted by such as this. How or why would you diminish a proposed subject such as Vitamin D value / benefit to support your stance? And exactly what IS that stance.... no existing drug can possibly be of benefit against Covid?

Perhaps I have misunderstood your comment, but it seems that I made a post clearly stating that Vitamin D had "other" benefits so that it was a "Valid" reason to take it with the hope that it also impacted Covid and your response seemed to try to minimalize that stance by stating that Vitamin D "really has little value" as worded by the "benefits shown to be limited"

That is a bit specious, because the "amount" of benefit was not part of the point nor even part of the question. It was stated that there was benefit and no risk. And in actuality, there is significant benefit in Vitamin D. So the question is WHY do you diminish it's use or suggested use. It is completely illogical!

Your statement above is equivalent to me stating... well, keeping 6 feet is "OK" but it is really of little benefit and do not expect it to really help! I.E. No need to really pay attention to the 6 foot rule. Therefore, main stream media and the medical profession should NOT be pushing / promoting the 6 foot distance rule! And that I make similar posts to EVERY marginal Covid policy! This would be kind of the "mirror" or reverse approach that I think many here see you take!

Some people here do not understand why you do not counter many of the marginal benefit "standard practices" but are quick to jump on the "it will not help" band wagon with any proposed compound that is not being developed by main stream pharma or has a formal RCT! A compound not having an RCT does not mean it does not work. We do not see you dissing Remdesivir here!

Just some thoughts! No accusation intended.

Quote from Bob#2

So the question is WHY do you diminish it's use or suggested use.

Posturing.. a mixture of devil's advocacy , attention seeking.. dilettantismo?

there are better uses of time.

“The man dilettante of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, knowledge but by verification. posturing”

In Australia Rupert Murdoch's SkyNews is advocating for HCQ use

In the USA Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Ingaraham too

Whatever sells..

Murdoch's motives are labyrinthine , Murdoch-centric and not philantropic.,, the voice of the free press is hard to hear anywhere

Ivermectin /HCQ discussion in Hindi mainly English after TM 41.30

the attitude to HCQ/Ivermectin in India seems to be pragmatic.

Any Hindi speakers here..?

Kant and Rastogi seem to be recommending ivermectin+ doxycycline +Zn (+-HCQ.).. for prophylaxis. PEP and PrEP..

for healthcare workers, journalists, high risk patients???(>65) diabetics...

maybe treatment.. and to do prophylaxis even if the vaccine comes..

https://www.facebook.com/drkka…ntarium/2735143143427693/

there was white paper awhile ago but use recommendations have firmed up considerably since that..

there appears to be a lot more urgency in India than in Australia.... deaths matter

https://www.sciencedirect.com/…20301025?via%3Dihub#bib22

Lancet changes because of retraction.

I was expecting an apology of sorts... but could not find one sorry,..

"The publication and subsequent retraction in June, 2020, of the Article

Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine .for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis,

based on an alleged dataset associated with Surgisphere,

prompted us to examine The Lancet's peer-review processes

"As a result of this review, with immediate effect, we have made changes to the declarations we seek from authors, "

https://www.thelancet.com/jour…-6736(20)31958-9/fulltext

Quote from RobertBryant

Ivermectin /HCQ discussion in Hindi mainly English after TM 13.30

the attitude to HCQ/Ivermectin in India seems to be pragmatic.

Any Hindi speakers here..?

Kant and Rastogi seem to be recommending ivermectin+ doxycycline +Zn (+-HCQ.).. for prophylaxis. PEP and PrEP..

for healthcare workers, journalists, high risk patients???(>65) diabetics...

maybe treatment.. and to do prophylaxis even if the vaccine comes..

https://www.facebook.com/drkka…ntarium/2735143143427693/

there was white paper awhile ago but use recommendations have firmed up considerably since that..

there appears to be a lot more urgency in India than in Australia.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/…20301025?via%3Dihub#bib22

Display More

It is rather surprising that it is so actively being used in India - I would have assumed that the same central-planning would lead to any vaccine-competitor being dissuaded from use. In this video they advocate for mass prophylaxis in many situations (zones of high infection, healthcare) and state it is very potent and safe. They have some real-world experience which suggests that the first vaccines won't work very well, and that to continue Ivermectin et al prevention. I watched about half and most of the biopharma details are already available.