@SOT grow up.
Gee "Dr. " Richard, I'd love to. But with people writing like you do, coronavirus may catch up with me first.
seven_of_twenty
Member
- Member since Apr 3rd 2018
- Last Activity:
Posts by seven_of_twenty
-
-
The info is obviously from a third world doctor in Miami... and it's older than a month... But this is a to short period for you to learn...
It's an anecdote. Story telling. It proves nothing. It could (and probably is) observation and reasoning errors. Ah, some people never learn. Correcting them is wasted time.
-
A sane, balanced article on HCQ:
I completely agree with you for once. It even hits the issue that HCQ can be especially harmful to very sick patients because the virus damages their heart and makes it more vulnerable to side effects. This is a subtle but important point often missed in arguments about HCQ with or without AZI.
-
Anyway the Science is done.
This is a completely, total, unmitigated, abject, regally cringeworthy, incredibly stupid assertion.
-
CDC comes out with their latest "Best Estimate" (Last column) IFR's, and they match the Stanford results of ~.4%.
OK. So if true, 4X deadlier than the seasonal flu and probably 10X as infective. So 40X worse. Great news THAT is. And the proof is always in the pudding as my venerated great-aunt used to repeat constantly. So let's look at the pudding: about 100,000 deaths from mid March to end of May and the rate is constant or rising at around 2500 per day with the country reasonable well locked down for two months. Now we are opening it. WTF do you think will happen? Have faith in people to be careful? Enjoyt these videos of how careful they were being today in Ozark, Missouri:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/24…missouri-party/index.html
Really, check out the CNN link for the video. The image above is not 1/100 th of it. It goes on that way seemingly for a half mile. There are literally thousands of people within easily virus-crossing range from each other. And you thought pee in the pool was a risk?
-
We know it since more than a month ! But believe me this will not bother an US hospital doctor as these first need a convincing phone call from a mafia daddy (CDC,FDA,deep state...)
Actually, from reporter's anecdotes, you won't know sh*t.
-
Breakthrough Drug: Ivermectin Shows 'Astounding' Results Against Coronavirus
That report is useless. Scientific studies, not reporter's hearsay stories, is the only way we will know if this or any drug is safe and effective.
-
Children infected with Sars-CoV-2 which causes COVID-19, have demonstrable virus in their pharynx and also in their feces. There is no theoretical reason they could not infect adults who come in contact with their stool (as on diapers or even invisible amounts on clothing or hands) or their oral or nasal secretions. Whether they actually do or not, I think this is still under study and do not have time to check. If your child has the virus though, I'd be cautious. Here is the article about upper respiratory and stool testing in children with the coronavirus.
-
And masks do work, and this is about surgical masks, not the N95 variety which is even better.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2
"We identified seasonal human coronaviruses, influenza viruses and rhinoviruses in exhaled breath and coughs of children and adults with acute respiratory illness. Surgical face masks significantly reduced detection of influenza virus RNA in respiratory droplets and coronavirus RNA in aerosols, with a trend toward reduced detection of coronavirus RNA in respiratory droplets. Our results indicate that surgical face masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza viruses from symptomatic individuals."
The link is the full text and see also the reference list for similar studies.
-
Everyone developed binding antibodies
Hmmm... Can't recall where but I hear or read only 60% for neutralizing antibodies at the lower two doses. And they stopped the higher dose trial because of a slew of side effects. I would have to look up again the diff between binding and neutralizing AB's but neutralizing apparently is what is protective.
-
Would you take $100 for it? Why so expensive?
Ha. I never got the hydroxychloroquine from India. Early in March, I did get chloroquine. I used three different India sources about $600 went that way because I wanted enough to treat 10-20 people and I was unsure if any would get through. It all left India as per India Post tracking but did not get the US postal service. I have to check that again to see if anything has changed but I did not receive the goods. Finally, I purchased an urgent supply from a local pharmacy. They did not allow self-prescription so I used a service so I wouldn't have to explain all of it to a colleague or my own doctor. And then I also got HCQ from Canadapharmacy when they still had it. I ended up with enough for at least 12 people (I don't recall how much we actually have) but I am now loath to use it. However it works out, I would spend that money again. Now, I am considering purchasing Ivermectin if I can find it. Common antibiotics, I have aplenty from my usual medical supply house. But they are backordered on Ivermectin.
-
It/s one thing for a well intentioned physician to prescribe medication such as HCQ and AZI off label, having given the patient informed consent and done the correct laboratory tests, EKG's and kept documentation. It is quite another thing to be a crook and charge $4000 by mail for a few generic drugs costing less than at most $100. This crook got caught:
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/ne…-was-yam-extract/2330326/
" in addition to the hydroxychloroquine, the COVID-19 kits came with a bottle of Viagra and Xanax to help with stress caused by the pandemic.
In a recorded phone call, an undercover agent posing as a customer said Staley filled them in on the prescription. Staley allegedly told the agent that if someone in the family contracted the virus that he would “activate” the medication by telling them the proper amount to ingest.
“I will be dosing it. I will activate it,” Staley told the agent, according to the new indictment. “You will own and possess these kits...When someone gets sick, we will start the loading on that person. We will load them and prophylax (sic) all of you.”
In addition, federal investigators say Staley touted the medication as an “amazing cure” for those sick with the deadly viral disease.
“You could be short of breath and coughing at noon today, and if I start your hydroxychloroquine loading dose, you’ll feel 99% better by noon tomorrow,” Staley allegedly told agents during an April 3 call. “It’s preventative and curative. It’s hard to believe, it’s almost too good to be true.”
I like the part about the Viagra and Xanax-- truly an artistic touch to the con.
-
Oh yeah, let's open up the country (it's being done as we write)... especially churches and choirs that President Trump finds "essential."
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e6.htm
"Following a 2.5-hour choir practice attended by 61 persons, including a symptomatic index patient, 32 confirmed and 20 probable secondary COVID-19 cases occurred (attack rate = 53.3% to 86.7%); three patients were hospitalized, and two died. Transmission was likely facilitated by close proximity (within 6 feet) during practice and augmented by the act of singing."
I am sure some idiots will say this report is "political" also.
-
https://www.thelancet.com/jour…-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext
This pretty well ends the bullsh*t about hydroxychloroquine with or without a macrolide antibiotic like azithromycin being effective. 96,000 patients reviewed. Across several levels of severity. vs non-treated controls. Results suggest the drugs may make things worse and have no overall benefit.
Having invested almost $1000 to obtain plenty of HCQ and Azi from the US, Canada and India, I am not happy to see this. Does anyone seriously think this study appearing in the highly prestigious Lancet (for more than a century one of the best medical journals in the world) does anyone think this is political? If so, get a life. Summary conclusions:
"96 032 patients (mean age 53·8 years, 46·3% women) with COVID-19 were hospitalised during the study period and met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 14 888 patients were in the treatment groups (1868 received chloroquine, 3783 received chloroquine with a macrolide, 3016 received hydroxychloroquine, and 6221 received hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide) and 81 144 patients were in the control group. 10 698 (11·1%) patients died in hospital. After controlling for multiple confounding factors (age, sex, race or ethnicity, body-mass index, underlying cardiovascular disease and its risk factors, diabetes, underlying lung disease, smoking, immunosuppressed condition, and baseline disease severity), when compared with mortality in the control group (9·3%), hydroxychloroquine (18·0%; hazard ratio 1·335, 95% CI 1·223–1·457), hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (23·8%; 1·447, 1·368–1·531), chloroquine (16·4%; 1·365, 1·218–1·531), and chloroquine with a macrolide (22·2%; 1·368, 1·273–1·469) were each independently associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality. Compared with the control group (0·3%), hydroxychloroquine (6·1%; 2·369, 1·935–2·900), hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (8·1%; 5·106, 4·106–5·983), chloroquine (4·3%; 3·561, 2·760–4·596), and chloroquine with a macrolide (6·5%; 4·011, 3·344–4·812) were independently associated with an increased risk of de-novo ventricular arrhythmia during hospitalisation."
My note: it is hard to argue against the finding that the drugs, if they helped at all, did not help much. You could claim that maybe the sickest patients got HCQ and AZI so the controls are invalid. That is improbable but you can't rule it out without *prospective* (not like this one retrospective) randomized double blind controlled studies with prematched experimental and control groups. You can bet a lot of such studies are now ongoing and will be reported soon. What is very clear from this is that any benefit of HCQ and AZI, if it exists, if certainly not, as many claimed, "ground breaking." This is very disappointing. I wonder what Dr. Strangelove (also known as Raoult) has to say about it.
-
10 unanswered questions.
That is a really good list and article. Thank you.
-
Maybe not - but you can certainly monetise them.
I suppose so but hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin and zinc sulfate are all cheap generics. Maybe they can be monetized due to the huge volume? If they work, of course, which unfortunately is seeming less and less likely with every new report.
-
This is not the case here AFAIK. This is government debt to the bank of england at bottom. They can stiff themselves if they like. A lot of it is contango btw- negative interest rates.
I'm no economist but I read that the long term result of the debts and low interest rate could be runaway inflation with all the pain and destruction of assets that this entails.
-
Hope
Siwwie wabbit. Hope is about as effective as prayer.
-
More on the politically motivated demonization of HCQ ---
Coronavirus: Politicized "Medicine"Soon, Lou, it won't matter. You can't politicize well performed, accurate, large, properly designed and peer reviewed, published medical studies. Those should be available soon (weeks or months). Most doctors do not jeopardize the care of their patients on the basis of politics. When were you ever asked your affiliation while visiting your care provider?
-
Looks like the VA leadership was at the White House said that the "VA Study" wasn't their own and it was essentially fake "scientific" news.
And they use HCQ.
One set of paid disinformants gone, hundreds more to go -- including most of the media -- when will you pay attention to who's pulling your strings?Link please?
