5 5
gowlerk

covid-19

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

TEN FUCKING SECONDS of searching.

Seriously.
 

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-748677716173

Okay, so you prefer these guys:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/vsrg/vsrg03-508.pdf

I'd have to dig through the archives, but they did a rethink along the way that changed the whole 'of' COVID to 'with' COVID, but standards evolve with experience.

I am still concerned by much of the 'information' that has been put forth by the Powers that Be.

Even if, say, Hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin had no better therapeutic efficacy than Yellow Skittles, when medical talking heads come on and say how dangerous these medications are it raises the odd eyebrow.  These meds are poster children for Safe and Effective (where indicated), and are used prophylactically by huge numbers of people over vast swaths of the globe with zip for ill effects over billions of doses.

If the Medical Expert came on and said that, on the basis of specific studies they found no improvement in results, but if you want to take it in amounts that keep Malaria or River Blindness at bay knock yourself out, that would make sense.

Hearing a Big Government Doctor on the tube (I guess flat screens aren't tubes, but what the hell) saying how toxic these drugs are, what a danger they present and that they "believe" them to be counterproductive, I am left scratching my head and asking WTF?  Taking drugs significantly safer than aspirin, even for a placebo effect (btw, Remdesivir is MORE dangerous and has the same improvement in outcome as a good placebo), can hardly be a bad idea.

Like chicken soup for the recently deceased, it couldn't hurt.

I do not attribute these positions to conspiracy, since that would give the responsible parties too much credit.  Claiming it is due to stupidity is similarly unlikely, since I am sure these people test well.  The only thing that comes to mind is craziness, which I attribute to their being overwhelmed.

The various vaccines are all well and good, but none of them rise to Silver Bullet status.  I know as many people who have become symptomatic after being fully vaccinated as those who were unvaccinated.  Their likelihood of being crippled by microthrombi (think The Bends where, instead of Nitrogen bubbles, you have cute little blood clots that aren't amenable to resolution in a hyperbaric chamber, but plug capillaries permanently) or dying may be greatly reduced, but they shed the virus at a rate identical to any other COVID patient according to recent reports.

Also, the spike protein, whose production is critical to the effect of the mRNA vaccines, is by any account cytotoxic.  This falls under the category of 'side effects,' which are a given in any therapy - even placebo sugar pills can make you fat.

In the end, the risk/benefit analysis says that taking the vaccine is likely the best course, but hardly puts you in the clear.  There was the case of the Swiss plane where the pilot bailed and had a total mal and the plane then landed itself, but the odds favor parachuting instead of trying to land an uncontrollable aircraft.

One thing that concerns me more than the disease itself is the Bad Craziness that comes with the pandemic.  There are still ripples of the insanity that took hold during the Black Death from 1348 onward, and I am unimpressed with the mental health of our society at the outset.

"May you live in interesting times" is reputedly and old Chinese curse, and interesting times are these.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, winsor said:

Hearing a Big Government Doctor on the tube (I guess flat screens aren't tubes, but what the hell) saying how toxic these drugs are, what a danger they present and that they "believe" them to be counterproductive, I am left scratching my head and asking WTF?  Taking drugs significantly safer than aspirin, even for a placebo effect (btw, Remdesivir is MORE dangerous and has the same improvement in outcome as a good placebo), can hardly be a bad idea.

You really can't figure out why doctors were discouraging the use of Ivermectin, just as dipshits were calling poison control after getting a bad dose from the feed shop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, lippy said:

You really can't figure out why doctors were discouraging the use of Ivermectin, just as dipshits were calling poison control after getting a bad dose from the feed shop?

I'm sure you have manufactured veterinary pharmaceuticals and thus have some idea of what you're talking about.

I defer to the Master.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This web site enables one to look at the data in various ways. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#compare-trends   Pick the state(s) you want to look at.

One could use this to argue their point or use the data to realize that what's occurring is complicated and there is no one specific solution. One example: the CA vs. FL argument. Dem vs. Rep. Mask, isolation and control vs. not. 

Looking at Cumulative Deaths per 100K one sees that FL is worse at 281 while CA is 182.

Then look at Daily, Raw totals that shows the 7-day averages one sees that CA is worse at 61, with FL at 1.

Many states have experienced 3 spikes, some worse than others. The recent FL spike was worse that the prior two but lower than the spike CA experienced.

There are others ways to look at the same data. Bottom line is there have been too many deaths, 755,201. One should wonder how many deaths were really COVID, and how many people would have lived if there was no political posturing and influence from big pharma.

What have we learned: The shot doesn't prevent COVID but it does reduce symptoms, there are potential negative side effects of the shot, natural immunity is real but not the same in each person that had COVID, monoclonal antibody treatment works, Ivermectin works, masks help but are not a magic shield, distancing helps, isolation helps but is not a fun way to live, and boosting the immune system helps. Politicians, much of mainstream media, and big pharma are not our friends. Vaccinated or unvaccinated, one can be a spreader.

US COVID cases have occurred in 14% of the population. COVID cases that resulted in death, 1.6%. Overall COVID deaths are 0.23% of the population.

Fighting amongst each other is worthless.

 

image.png.e090f5ac553dd1d4381a1fe75dafbc56.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, billeisele said:

This web site enables one to look at the data in various ways. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#compare-trends   Pick the state(s) you want to look at.

One could use this to argue their point or use the data to realize that what's occurring is complicated and there is no one specific solution. One example: the CA vs. FL argument. Dem vs. Rep. Mask, isolation and control vs. not. 

Looking at Cumulative Deaths per 100K one sees that FL is worse at 281 while CA is 182.

Then look at Daily, Raw totals that shows the 7-day averages one sees that CA is worse at 61, with FL at 1.

Many states have experienced 3 spikes, some worse than others. The recent FL spike was worse that the prior two but lower than the spike CA experienced.

There are others ways to look at the same data. Bottom line is there have been too many deaths, 755,201. One should wonder how many deaths were really COVID, and how many people would have lived if there was no political posturing and influence from big pharma.

What have we learned: The shot doesn't prevent COVID but it does reduce symptoms, there are potential negative side effects of the shot, natural immunity is real but not the same in each person that had COVID, monoclonal antibody treatment works, Ivermectin works, masks help but are not a magic shield, distancing helps, isolation helps but is not a fun way to live, and boosting the immune system helps. Politicians, much of mainstream media, and big pharma are not our friends. Vaccinated or unvaccinated, one can be a spreader.

US COVID cases have occurred in 14% of the population. COVID cases that resulted in death, 1.6%. Overall COVID deaths are 0.23% of the population.

Fighting amongst each other is worthless.

 

image.png.e090f5ac553dd1d4381a1fe75dafbc56.png

I am in complete agreement with every point made in this post.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, winsor said:

And the conclusions of that link are as follows:

Conclusions: The incidence in mortality rates and number of cases is significantly lower among the APOC countries compared to non-APOC countries. That a mass public health preventive campaign against COVID-19 may have taken place, inadvertently, in some African countries with massive community ivermectin use is an attractive hypothesis. Additional studies are needed to confirm it.

In other words there is some anecdotal reason to hope, but no reliable evidence. I give you this more detailed report from 6 days ago that looks into this and explains that despite quite a few proper studies into the efficacy of the drug in treating or preventing Covid-19 there is still no reason to think it can help.

https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/info/ppih/if-ppih-covid-19-sag-ivermectin-in-treatment-and-prevention-rapid-review.pdf

The fact is the even Merck, the profit driven "big pharma" company that you express such dislike for, who produces Ivermectin and stands to make bank from its successful products says this:

 

Merck,  the  manufacturers  of  ivermectin,  have  concluded  that  there is: •  “No scientific  basis  for  a  potential  therapeutic  effect against COVID-19 from  pre-clinical studies;   •  No meaningful  evidence  for  clinical  activity  or  clinical  efficacy  in patients  with  COVID-19 disease,  and;   •  A concerning  lack  of  safety  data in  the  majority  of  studies.” Furthermore,  Merck states that  “We  do not  believe that  the data available support  the  safety  and efficacy  of  Ivermectin  beyond the doses  and populations  indicated in  the  regulatory  agencyapproved prescribing  information.” 

 

Other than the fact that this gives you a chance to rail on against both government agencies and drug companies, tell me why you would continue to believe and spread the Ivermectin myth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Then look at Daily, Raw totals that shows the 7-day averages one sees that CA is worse at 61, with FL at 1.

Too look at this and say CA is doing worse than FL is disingenuous.

91-DIVOC-states-normalized-Florida.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the vaccines are not as effective as we hoped.  Ten of the thirty three patients in our local hospital are fully vaccinated.

“The patients range in age from 19 to 87, according to Mount Nittany’s COVID-19 inpatient dashboard. Ten are fully vaccinated and 22 are not vaccinated.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Looks like the vaccines are not as effective as we hoped.  Ten of the thirty three patients in our local hospital are fully vaccinated.

“The patients range in age from 19 to 87, according to Mount Nittany’s COVID-19 inpatient dashboard. Ten are fully vaccinated and 22 are not vaccinated.”

 

If 100% of a population is vaccinated and 100% of patients in the local hospital are vaccinated, what does that tell you about the efficacy of the vaccine? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Neither does 10 of 33.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Looks like the vaccines are not as effective as we hoped.  Ten of the thirty three patients in our local hospital are fully vaccinated.

“The patients range in age from 19 to 87, according to Mount Nittany’s COVID-19 inpatient dashboard. Ten are fully vaccinated and 22 are not vaccinated.”

Demonstrating your inability to do maths again? You should ease off on the scotch, you know :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

Except for one glaring thing, so am I. That one thing? "Ivermectin works". I have seen no reason to believe that.

There is a ton of info out there but you won't find it in the main stream media. That fact should make one wonder.

The results in India are not "controlled" studies but when millions are involved and they are having great success, that is good enough for me.

Then there are MDs that are using it. Some are brave enough to report their results. Yep, another "uncontrolled" study but the patients are not dying. One MD reported approximately 4,000 patients, 5 hospitalized and 100% survival.

I know a few people that have used it. Another "super uncontrolled" study. None of them had any problems.

The EU has recognized it as an option.

Ivermectin has been using for over 40 years, has little side effects and is cheap. There is a controlled study underway being done by Duke University looking at Ivermectin and two other common drugs. They have a few partner medical facilities involved in the study. One is the Medical Univ of SC and that's how I heard about the study. It's been underway for a couple months. https://www.cbs17.com/news/south/dukes-ivermectin-clinical-trials-now-open-to-sc-residents-heres-how-to-sign-up/
 

The people that are using animal grade Ivermectin and self dosing are a problem, not good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, billeisele said:

There is a controlled study underway being done by Duke University looking at Ivermectin and two other common drugs. They have a few partner medical facilities involved in the study. One is the Medical Univ of SC and that's how I heard about the study. It's been underway for a couple months. 

If this study concludes there is no benefit, will you accept that or will you ignore it and fall back on the anecdotal information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nwt said:

Too look at this and say CA is doing worse than FL is disingenuous.

91-DIVOC-states-normalized-Florida.png

I didn't use that chart, it shows COVID cases. I was looking at the death info. The chart is below. 

But regardless, you are kinda making my point. One can make an argument "proving" their point by using data that shows what they want. There are many ways to look at the data. And all of it is constantly changing.  

There is no sense in arguing about all this stuff. 

image.png.f2f5da62d76eae8ed56fc281225ad313.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, nwt said:

If this study concludes there is no benefit, will you accept that or will you ignore it and fall back on the anecdotal information?

Great question. We'll see what happens. If there is a conflict that will require significant head scratching.

An ongoing concern is the overwhelming influence that big pharma has on medical issues. They strongly influence how doctors are trained. There is a definite "medicate to cure" mentality. Some doctors recognize that bias and treat differently. 

Question for you - Will you look at the anecdotal info and at least be open to the idea that it can work? 

Interesting article https://www.thedesertreview.com/news/national/ivermectin-obliterates-97-percent-of-delhi-cases/article_6a3be6b2-c31f-11eb-836d-2722d2325a08.html

India is divided into states with governance much like the US. The states can decide what they will or won't do. Some promoted Ivermectin and some didn't. Same people, same genetics, same living conditions, the results are notable. IMO, an "uncontrolled" study this large rises above the anecdotal level.

This is one paragraph from the article, "The choice is clear. Ivermectin is the safe, repurposed Nobel Prize-Winning drug that effectively reduces death up to 91% from COVID-19.  It does not produce blood clots, heart attacks, or strokes. It does not cause violent immune reactions. And it reduced the COVID-19 cases in Delhi, India, by an astonishing 97% in five weeks. It costs pennies."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Non sequitur

I'll help you out - by just repeating what nwt said:

45 minutes ago, nwt said:

what does that tell you about the efficacy of the vaccine? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Neither does 10 of 33.

So your conclusion was WAY off. You seem very determined to demonstrate how bad you are at math...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, billeisele said:

Question for you - Will you look at the anecdotal info and at least be open to the idea that it can work? 

The gold standard for medical effectiveness is the RCT. Not anecdotes.

By the way, are you aware of nwt's medical background?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Ivermectin has been using for over 40 years, has little side effects and is cheap.

So is aspirin.  Even cheaper, in use even longer, and even fewer side effects. 

Would you rely on aspirin to keep you safe from COVID?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, olofscience said:

The gold standard for medical effectiveness is the RCT. Not anecdotes.

By the way, are you aware of nwt's medical background?

No, not aware of his background.

Yes, I'm aware of the RCT gold standard.

Please read the article and links about India and let us know your thoughts. Note that it was published in June and you've probably never seen it before. That should make one wonder.

The basic question is: At what point does a massive uncontrolled study become credible info? The people involved are well known and highly credible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, billvon said:

So is aspirin.  Even cheaper, in use even longer, and even fewer side effects. 

Would you rely on aspirin to keep you safe from COVID?

Good morning. I'm struggling to understand why a guy with your intelligence would even post this. I've always thought you were a, hmmmm, that's interesting, kinda guy. You know, like someone that would figure out how to use solar to economically power a house. I'm wondering when we can buy an SMR at Dollar Tree and plug it into the main panel.

To humor you, my answer is... If it was used in a massive uncontrolled study like we're seeing in India, and it had the same incredible results, then yes I would add it to my protocol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

5 5