In the past 12 hours I moved a number of posts here. The COVID thread has always been a crack in the door to politics, but we have for the most part successfully kept it to the politics surrounding the virus. That is getting harder to moderate, as members try and expand into areas we are not suited for at LF.
Online
Shane D.
Administrator
- Male
- from Pensacola Beach, Fl.
- Member since Jan 26th 2015
- Last Activity:
- Latest Posts
Posts by Shane D.
-
-
Display More
Google uncensors Todaro HCQ paper after 4 months
"
An Effective Treatment for Coronavirus (COVID-19)
Presented by: James M. Todaro, MD (Columbia MD, [email protected]) and Gregory J. Rigano, Esq. ([email protected])
In consultation with Stanford University School of Medicine, UAB School of Medicine and National Academy of Sciences researchers.
March 13, 2020
note the fake Twitter warning
HCQ info could be"potentially spammy or unsafe, "
Thanks for posting this. A good reminder that HCQ/CQ was not just pulled out of thin air as a possible remedy for COVID. The Chinese and South Koreans had good reason to try it early on against COVID. Successfully also. From the now uncensored Todaro HCQ paper:
"According to research by the US CDC, chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS coronavirus, both prophylactically and therapeutically. SARS coronavirus has significant similarities to COVID-19. Specifically, the CDC research was completed in primate cells using chloroquine’s well known function of elevating endosomal pH. The results show that “We have identified chloroquine as an effective antiviral agent for SARS-CoV in cell culture conditions, as evidenced by its inhibitory effect when the drug was added prior to infection or after the initiation and establishment of infection. The fact that chloroquine exerts an antiviral effect during pre- and post-infection conditions suggest that it is likely to have both prophylactic and therapeutic advantages.”While reading, I kept asking myself "why would Google censor a perfectly legitimate paper like this?" Scary.
-
Display More
Is it? I have not read any news accounts. I read that the Canadian border has practically no traffic, except trucks hauling freight.
Anyway, the black and hispanic U.S. native population has a much higher incidence of infection, and more deaths per capita. It is not likely the black population is being infected by illegal immigrants. It would not be infected at a higher rate than the working class white population. I think the reasons why these minority groups have more casualties are clear:
They have more pre-existing health problems such as obesity.
Their jobs often require hands-on physical labor. You cannot do a factory job, or a grocery or warehouse job at home over the internet.
Many of their jobs, such as meatpacking, are prone to spreading infections.
Poor people tend to live in crowded houses, where infections often spread from one family member to another.
Poor houses often fail to meet modern standards of hygiene. In some Native American communities, more than half the houses lack indoor plumbing. Overall, 5.8% do, compared to 0.3% of white housing.
Hospitals in poor neighborhoods tend to have lower standards, fewer doctors, less equipment and so on. Especially in rural districts in Georgia, where many poor minorities live.
Let the facts fall where they may, but let those facts be true. And let no man decide that his interpretation of those facts, are no less compassionate than the other.
-
As far as I know, the border is closed, except for government officials and other high muckety-mucks. No one is crossing in either direction. The Canadian border is also closed. Really closed. We're talking so closed, their P.M. won't even come to Washington!
Are you serious? Yes, the border is officially closed, but it is very porous as you of all would, should know. Look, in their shoes I would be doing the same. This is not a political debate, and I do not understand why we can not speak honestly about the facts?
-
The slow decay seam to be due to cluster outbreaks happening during a longer time frame, this is clearly seen in the Swedish data. Somehow I suspect that it might have something to do with immegrants. Swedish data suggest that immigrants have over 200% overdeath compared to maybe 40% of the overall normal swedish population and 20% of swedish population is from other countries
It is not reported on much here in the US (politically incorrect), but part of the reason for the recent case increases in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California are because of immigrants. Northern Mexico has been hard hit, and naturally they seek out the better care to the north. Their family members in the US, get infected, or vice versa, and also seek care.
In southern California as an example, during a one month period, there were over 500 helicopter medical flights transporting patients from the border hospitals, to hospitals further north with available beds.
But there are other hot spots too, such as our Native American reservations, jails, apartment complexes around universities, and yes...it is still getting into nursing homes after extraordinary precautions taken.
-
Display More
https://www.newsweek.com/key-d…jQJj70JtASkIRrR9uRS7LqIsF
"As professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, I have authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications and currently hold senior positions on the editorial boards of several leading journals. I am usually accustomed to advocating for positions within the mainstream of medicine, so have been flummoxed to find that, in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily. Fortunately, the situation can be reversed easily and quickly.""I am referring, of course, to the medication hydroxychloroquine"
"I myself know of two doctors who have saved the lives of hundreds of patients with these medications, but are now fighting state medical boards to save their licenses and reputations"
"In the future, I believe this misbegotten episode regarding hydroxychloroquine will be studied by sociologists of medicine as a classic example of how extra-scientific factors overrode clear-cut medical evidence."
https://respectfulinsolence.co…fends-hydroxychloroquine/
Did not take long for this professor in the Newsweek article to be hammered by this "colleague". Could not find who the author of the hit piece was, as he appears to be anonymous ("by Orac")? He gives the appearance of understanding Epidemiology, but his insulting, unscientific tone turned me off, so I did not read all the way to the end.
From what I did read, he did not address how safe the drug was. If it is safe (and it is), and front line responders think it may work, then it should be freely available on an outpatient basis. End of story, until a preponderance of evidence proves otherwise. -
@Mark Goldes
I moved your post here, from the Green Tech thread. We Moderators/Admins, are leery when you comment, as I am sure you understand. A new wind turbine architechture is one thing, but Sterling Engines, while legitimate, have been the bait for many a scam.
-
I'm starting to see disposed of masks everywhere. Walking paths, parking lots, on the beach. I'm not the only one to notice:
https://arizonadailyindependen…s-environmental-concerns/
Hard to believe what slobs some people are.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/intera…avirus-brazil-amazon.html
One of the best written articles I have ever read. Well documented with photos, and aerials. Heart-wrenching account of how the virus has decimated communities along the Amazon River. Started from an English visitor landing in Manaus, and then spread via crowded ferry boats. Medical teams trying to care for those in remote areas, spread it instead to the local indigenous people. Many on those teams died themselves, or infected their own families.
Medical flights intended to save patients, became killers due to the lower O2 at the higher altitudes.
Would not be surprised to see this writer get a Pulitzer.
-
Here are well known examples of Trump's medical advice:
- He repeatedly advocated the use of hydroxychloroquine. He said that he himself is using it.
- He said that masks have marginal effect, or no effect, that he himself would not use one, and that people in his rallies do not need them.
- He has downplayed the need for social distancing. Before the Tulsa rally, his campaign workers were ordered to remove social distancing stickers from the chairs. He moved the GOP convention from Charlotte when he was told that masks and social distancing would be enforced by local officials.
- He advocated ignoring public health experts, and quickly opening states against the public health policies of his own administration, with tweets such as "LIBERATE MICHIGAN."
- He advocated ingesting and injecting disinfectants. That was not a joke.
- He has repeatedly said he wants to reduce the number of tests and slow down testing because he thinks tests cause large number of cases. It is the de facto policy of the Federal government to slow down, defund, and prevent tests, so this has had an effect.
His advice has had an effect. His supporters have got the message. A smaller percent of GOP voters wear masks, and many of them say masks do no good. His goal was to politicize masks and other public health measures, and to demonize Fauci and other experts. He succeeded in that. Fauci now faces death threats.
1. Show where he "advocated" HCQ's use. And what is wrong with a patient saying what medication he is on?
2. Most masks are being used inappropriately, or are not the quality needed, so they do have a "marginal effect". That is a well known fact. Because of that, Sweden recommended against their use. And how many on the left have been exposed as hypocrites on this mask issue? Cuomo yesterday, his brother many times, and Fauci yesterday at a ball game, are just a very few of the many examples. Want more?3. I dispute that about his rally. They actually took great pains to ensure attendees safety. Hand sanitizers everywhere. Announcements to stay a safe distance. And tell me; how much has the left been concerned about these riots, and the lack of social distancing being practiced at them? Let me save the trouble...they have actually endorsed it, for the "better social good".
4. That tweet was about the Michigan Governor's over the top, politically motivated, lock down. Well after the facts showed being outside was beneficial, she decided to outlaw being outside...unless participating in a riot. Then it was OK.
5. That is taken out of context.
6. Well, that one I am not sure about. He did reconfirm the next day that he meant what he said. No matter, because he never took action. We all say things we never do. Not good for a POTUS though.
-
Not much room in the wind industry for conspiracy theories, or scams. If it works in the field, it will be used. If not, it won't.
-
I think that any politician giving unwarranted (and strong) medical advice contrary to medical opinion would lead to the type of counter-reation we have seen.
Maybe I missed it, but can you show me where Trump gave medical advice...Or for that matter, any US politician? Are you referring to his comment that "this could be a game changer"?
And if so, what was the "medical opinion" on HCQ when he said that? Not trying to nit pick, but your post seems more emotional than factual, but I could be wrong.
-
Display More
You are sending out conflicting signals. There are HCQ politics involved as you admit, but "not suppression of it being used as a treatment". What is up with that? Politics has clearly resulted in it's suppression IMO, so the two sound contradictory. In your opinion, Is HCQ being suppressed in the US, and if so, in what way? What "political stuff from the US" makes you want to move on?
And also, why is an epidemiologist not qualified to evaluate observational studies? Most doctors I know, rely on them to interpret studies. Most are not trained in that.
I have realised, after a bit of initial research, that I am no qualified to judge observational studies, and I'm pretty sure most outpatient clinicians, and most people here, are no more trained in this than me. The issue is that you have to control or reliably discount both known and unknown confounding variables. A lot has been written about how easily this can go wrong when effects are nonlinear even when the variables are included explicitly in the study, and COVID has a very strong nonlinear dependence on age. There just are not enough subjects in most trials, even if they tried, to deal with this properly. In this case, working out which studies are reliable and which are not is something I'm pretty sure most people can't do, so falling back on the general idea that observational studies do not prove or disprove drug effectiveness as treatment seems sensible. using the "automatic" multivariate regressions so widely favoured since you throw a stats package at the problem and hope it will work.
epidemiologists are not AFAIK experts on medical treatment, or trials of its efficacy, and hence on assessing observtaional trials. It is just not their thing. True, some might be good statisticians, but you need more than that to know how good observational trials are in a particular case.
It seems to me that the only way I could NOT send out conflicting signals is if I were blinkered with some fixed view about HCQ - when the evidence is still coming in and any evaluation now is necessarily incomplete?
Many doctors in the US have complained of being unable to use HCQ as a treatment - one way or another. I've no idea how much that is a thing. But it should not be. Doctors should ideally do what they think is best:
(1) be under no pressure not to prescribe something they are willing to take responsibility for and have done due diligence on
(2) be under no pressure to prescribe something they feel is inappropriate.
In 3 months we will have much more information: at that time I don't expect HCQ will look like a sensible treatment even prophylatically - but it might. Till then why can't politicians keep out?
Until then, we have politicians and sections of the media claiming it is a good treatment in a way that preempts proper due diligence and puts enormous pressure on doctors from patients convinced of this (we have posted links to that effect). We have the medical estblishment fighting back against this and over-compensating in a wish to save doctors from being pushed to do harm. We have the RCTs slowly coming in and moving opinion, so far, in a negative direction. We have inordinate political fuss which prevents many people from evaluating this drug like any other.
Thanks for clearing that up. I believe we are basically on the same page. IMO, roughly half the studies coming in say HCQ works, and half not. It is no more dangerous to use than any of a number of OTC medications. Many doctors, and their patients think it works. Looked at scientifically, it's use therefore should be unrestricted. But it is not, which shows this is all political.
I sometimes wonder if Obama and May were still in office, instead of Trump/Boris, and the one said "HCQ may be a game changer", and the other opted for Herd Immunity, would the media, and left have reacted in the same way? Personally, I don't think so. For that matter, my guess is that the whole tone, and tenor of this pandemic would have been different.
-
epidemiologists are not experts in evaluating new medical treatments, nor evaluating observational studies of those, etc.
There are reasons for the medical establishment being cautious about treatments that do not seem to work in RCTs.No-one is suppressing HCQ as a treatment - the truth will out!
The more I here all this political stuff from the US the more it makes me just want to move on to more interesting topics.
You are sending out conflicting signals. There are HCQ politics involved as you admit, but "not suppression of it being used as a treatment". What is up with that? Politics has clearly resulted in it's suppression IMO, so the two sound contradictory. In your opinion, Is HCQ being suppressed in the US, and if so, in what way? What "political stuff from the US" makes you want to move on?
And also, why is an epidemiologist not qualified to evaluate observational studies? Most doctors I know, rely on them to interpret studies. Most are not trained in that.
-
Isn't the problem that a proper HCQ study has not been done with controls yet. Such studies is underway so why not allow treatment with HCQ now? I tried to track down what professional doktors in sweden has to say about HCQ. Extreamly little is writtenand most is negative saying there is no positive effect.
Lots of good info in the article.
-
https://www.newsweek.com/key-d…jQJj70JtASkIRrR9uRS7LqIsF
"As professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, I have authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications and currently hold senior positions on the editorial boards of several leading journals. I am usually accustomed to advocating for positions within the mainstream of medicine, so have been flummoxed to find that, in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily. Fortunately, the situation can be reversed easily and quickly.""I am referring, of course, to the medication hydroxychloroquine"
"I myself know of two doctors who have saved the lives of hundreds of patients with these medications, but are now fighting state medical boards to save their licenses and reputations"
"In the future, I believe this misbegotten episode regarding hydroxychloroquine will be studied by sociologists of medicine as a classic example of how extra-scientific factors overrode clear-cut medical evidence."
-
Yes, but Italy also allowed international flights to continue, and seeded the virus across the world to a much much greater extent.
Had China/W.H.O. acted responsibly, Italy and NYC would not be in the position they were put in. They would not to be defending their actions/policies, as they are now. The virus could have been contained in China far longer, and while eventually it probably would have spread around the world, we could have been much more prepared to minimized the deaths, and misery it has caused. Possibly even have a vaccine at the ready for when it arrived.
That is why I go easy on all governments, and politicians (including Cuomo and Trump) who are trying their honest best to deal with this burden thrust upon them by a ruthless communist goverment. They were given little, to no forewarning, and by the time they understood the seriousness of the problem, it was too late.
-
The point is, New York would have been infected at the same time, to the same extent, even if not a single person had come in from China. If the entire Chinese nation had vanished overnight, it would have made no difference, because the virus from Italy increased exponentially, as viruses always do in an epidemic. One infected person from Italy would be enough to trigger the whole U.S.
So, is shutting down air travel from known pandemic countries an effective policy?
-
https://www.news-medical.net/n…-Large-Spanish-Study.aspx
"A new study published in the preprint server medRxiv* in July 2020 reports that, of the 16 drugs currently used in the treatment of COVID-19, only two have any significant benefit on the clinical outcome."
"they first classified the 16 therapies used into four groups, namely, steroids, antivirals, antibiotics and immunomodulators. Taking into consideration that any of these treatments were likely chosen because of the severe presentation, they adjusted the analysis."
"They found small effect sizes for most medications except for prednisone, a corticosteroid, and hydroxychloroquine, an anti-inflammatory drug. These showed an associated reduction in mortality risk from COVID-19 of 15% and 16%, respectively."
"Compared with some recent results, this supports the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin. Both the viral load and the clinical outcomes were found to be superior with this drug."
"The current study shows that prednisone and hydroxychloroquine have at least a medium effect size after matching, which is seen even in patients on mechanical ventilation."
-
That was not the source of the infection. I read that nearly all New York City COVID-19 DNA was the Italian strain.
I remember reading that also, but then there was no more said about it. This NYT's article clearly shows in graphics how communist China allowed their Wuhan international flights to continue, and in effect seeded the virus throughout the world. https://www.nytimes.com/intera…d/coronavirus-spread.html
There were 900 people a week landing in NY every week alone. Theycarried the virus home, where it spread like wildfire. My guess, is that NY got hit from the east (Italy) with a slight mutation, and west (Wuhan), which may be another reason why it was so bad there. They will figure it out one day. Not that it makes much of a difference now, as the damage is done.
