5 5
gowlerk

covid-19

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, billeisele said:

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.

"People who'd already been taking low-dose aspirin to reduce their risk of heart disease had a 29% lower risk of contracting COVID-19 compared to those who didn't take aspirin"

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210315/low-dose-aspirin-may-help-shield-you-from-covid-19#1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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?

Bill can answer for himself.  But for the rest of the Ivermectin fans the answer is almost certainly no, they will not accept it.

The whole ivermectin thing got started when two studies found it was effective.  They were pulled shortly thereafter for falsifying data.  But that started the ball rolling.  Several subsequent studies showing no benefit did not affect the ivermectin craze.  Not even the manufacturer saying it didn't work has slowed the demand for it.

One thing that's odd about this craze is that we now DO have effective treatments for COVID-19.  Monoclonal antibodies work well.  We have both molnupiravir and Paxlovid in the approval pipeline - and these are drugs that actually do work, and are pills you can take, pills being something of a holy grail to many people who fear injections.

Share this post


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

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

Head scratching? You are bordering, but not quite crossing into conspiracy theory territory on this Ivermectin thing. Again I ask you, if it was effective why would Merck or anyone else suppress that information? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 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?

Maybe fewer, IDK. But Aspirin has a ton of very bad side effects when used inappropriately. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
34 minutes ago, billeisele said:

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.

Hi Bill,

Re:  a massive uncontrolled study

I'm not a medical person, I'm an engineer.  If you brought me a massive uncontrolled study, I would put it where it belongs:  In the trash.

Jerry Baumchen

Edit to add:  It is something I would expect from Rudy Giuliani.

 

Edited by JerryBaumchen
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

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.  

Not every way to look at the data is equal, and I'm not making your point by showing you you're wrong--I'll bet you think you're being clever by setting up a catch-22. Some views of the data are misleading while others are honest. Some are cherry-picked to support a particular position while others are looking for the truth.

Here, you give yet another dishonest view of the data, by comparing deaths in FL vs. California without normalizing by population. The honest view of the same data is attached here.

1 hour ago, billeisele said:

If there is a conflict that will require significant head scratching.

When a RCT disproves anecdotes, there is no conflict. No head scratching required. That's the entire point of doing the RCT.

 

1 hour ago, billeisele said:

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

What does it mean to be "open to the idea that it can work"? It means being open to the idea of doing an RCT and accepting the results.

 

1 hour ago, billeisele said:

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

This is indeed a very basic question. Simply making an uncontrolled study larger does not increase the reliability of its conclusions.

91-DIVOC-states-normalized-Florida (2).png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
2 hours ago, billeisele said:

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.

Already did. My thoughts can be summed up in 4 words: correlation is not causation.

2 hours ago, billeisele said:

If there is a conflict that will require significant head scratching.

There won't be any conflict because the RCT result will most definitely be more reliable than any uncontrolled study.

Edited by olofscience
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Hi Bill,

Re:  a massive uncontrolled study

I'm not a medical person, I'm an engineer.  If you brought me a massive uncontrolled study, I would put it where it belongs:  In the trash.

Jerry Baumchen

Edit to add:  It is something I would expect from Rudy Giuliani.

 

Actually, some things can only be studied in situ (consider the study that showed that increasing the minimum wage in similar markets didn’t lead to inflation, job loss, or business closings. It was done with economic data available when one of Pennsylvania/NJ/NY raised their minimum wage, and another didn’t. Since they’re all close to each other, the economics of adjacent areas along the border don’t differ a lot. 
The Nobel in economics was awarded this year to three researchers for helping to figure out how to make these natural experiments valid. There’s a lot of scoping of data and validity definition that needs to be done, which is probably why they got the prize I dare say. 
Whether this can be applied to the natural experiment being described (Ivermectin in India) is up to people with a whole lot more credentials than I have. 
Wendy P. 

Share this post


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

Here is another honest view of the same data: Total COVID deaths, adjusted for population. The idea that FL is somehow winning is laughable.

91-DIVOC-states-normalized-Florida (3).png

Don't know why you posted this. I used that exact graph as an example of how data can be used to drive a point.

My exact words were, "Looking at Cumulative Deaths per 100K one sees that FL is worse at 281 while CA is 182." So, NO, I did not say that FL is winning.

Share this post


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

Don't know why you posted this. I used that exact graph as an example of how data can be used to drive a point.

Here, you seem to have missed this:

3 hours ago, nwt said:

Not every way to look at the data is equal, and I'm not making your point by showing you you're wrong--I'll bet you think you're being clever by setting up a catch-22. Some views of the data are misleading while others are honest. Some are cherry-picked to support a particular position while others are looking for the truth.

Here, you give yet another dishonest view of the data, by comparing deaths in FL vs. California without normalizing by population. The honest view of the same data is attached here.

 

Share this post


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

Here, you seem to have missed this:

 

   3 hours ago, nwt said:

Not every way to look at the data is equal, and I'm not making your point by showing you you're wrong--I'll bet you think you're being clever by setting up a catch-22. Some views of the data are misleading while others are honest. Some are cherry-picked to support a particular position while others are looking for the truth.

Here, you give yet another dishonest view of the data, by comparing deaths in FL vs. California without normalizing by population. The honest view of the same data is attached here.

********************************************************************************

No clue where you are going except deeper into a hole that you dug for yourself. I did see the comment and it made no sense because the data I pointed out was normalized. You then chose to post the exact graph I spoke about, and surprise, it's normalized!

This is exactly what was said, "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."

The first is normalized and the second isn't. My point was that one can find data to make their point, These type arguments are just silly.

As of today, FL is doing better than CA in rolling weekly average death count. That data is not normalized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
50 minutes ago, billeisele said:

You then chose to post the exact graph I spoke about, and surprise, it's normalized!

The graph you posted was not normalized. Anyway, that isn't important--it's just a distraction from the actual point.

 

50 minutes ago, billeisele said:

No clue where you are going

You're being deliberately obtuse.

 

50 minutes ago, billeisele said:

My point was that one can find data to make their point, These type arguments are just silly.

You seem to be making the absurd implication that all arguments based in data are equally fallacious, simply by virtue of the fact they are using data. This is what I've been refuting in the comments you've been ignoring.

Why stop at data? Why not generalize it completely and say "oh look, here's an argument.... and here's another argument that says the opposite! Both can't be right, so they must both be wrong--therefore all arguments must be silly! Checkmate, science!"

Edited by nwt
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
8 hours ago, billeisele said:

What have we learned: The shot doesn't prevent COVID but it does reduce symptoms, there are potential negative side effects of the shot...  

... Vaccinated or unvaccinated, one can be a spreader.

 

Not sure where you learned that.

Vaccines definitely prevent Covid. Not perfectly, but they clearly reduce the chance of someone getting ill if they are exposed.

As of a couple weeks ago, the vax rate was a bit over 55%.
Breakthrough cases were around 20%.
So a bit over half the population is accounting for one fifth of the cases.

Also, you mentioned that the 'Main Stream Media" isn't reporting the success of Ivermectin.
You then link the "Desert Review" and a story about it.

I'd never read that source, so I took a look. Not a just the story, but at the other stories on the site.
Then a look at the 'media bias' fact check site.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-desert-review-bias/


From the link:
 

Quote

Regarding Ivermectin, The Desert Review covers it extensively to the point where you would think this is an Ivermectin promotion source. Perhaps it is as nearly every article talks about the positive virtues of Ivermectin such as this Gaslighting Ivermectin, vaccines and the pandemic for profit and this The great Ivermectin deworming hoax. Many pro-Ivermectin opinion articles are written by Justus R. Hope, MD., who admits this name is a pseudonym underneath the articles he writes.

So yeah, I'll pass on the horse de-wormer.

When the manufacturer, "Big Pharma" says not to use it, when they could make millions promoting it, then I tend to think it's not that good of an idea.

Edit to add: Vaccinated people who get sick can still spread the virus. 
But they aren't as sick for as long, so they have less chance to spread it.
And the 'virus shedding' bullshit is just that.
Vaccinated people ONLY spread the virus if they are infected.

You didn't state that specifically, and I'm not sure if you were implying it or not.

 

Edited by wolfriverjoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, billeisele said:

I didn't use that chart, it shows COVID cases.

So I could not help but notice that you found some data you liked and stated, without any qualifications, "the recent FL spike was worse that the prior two but lower than the spike CA experienced."

Then, when that data was refuted, you posted "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."

It sure seems like such qualifications about data being misrepresentable are only applied to data you disagree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, billeisele said:

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.

We've covered Ivermectin already.  Others have covered most of the others. I'll cover this one:

"Vaccinated or unvaccinated, one can be a spreader."  That is true, just as drunk or not, you can kill someone with your car.  Still, if your goal is to NOT kill anyone with your car, avoiding drunk driving is the hot ticket.  Getting vaccinated significantly reduces your odds of spreading COVID.  So does masking.  So does distancing.  So does testing.  If, using all those things, Re gets below 1, the pandemic is over.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
3 hours ago, nwt said:

Why not generalize it completely and say "oh look, here's an argument.... and here's another argument that says the opposite! Both can't be right, so they must both be wrong--therefore all arguments must be silly! Checkmate, science!"

Fox News one time slogan........."We report. You decide".

Edited by gowlerk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, billvon said:

So I could not help but notice that you found some data you liked and stated, without any qualifications, "the recent FL spike was worse that the prior two but lower than the spike CA experienced."

Then, when that data was refuted, you posted "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."

It sure seems like such qualifications about data being misrepresentable are only applied to data you disagree with.

The data in the chart can't be refuted (using the presumption that the CDC data is correct). It's quite clear. Someone earlier went off the track, most likely due to poor reading comprehension skills, and tried, but failed miserably, to refute what was clearly stated.

In the 7-day moving average chart, below, the CA spike in the middle was high. The most recent FL spike was their highest but lower than CA. The point being that since the data is not normalized for population it's not apples to apples. But one could still state - Hey look, FL is great and CA sux, and not be incorrect, based on the limitations of the data. When one takes that same data and normalizes it, the spikes appear differently, as shown in the second chart below.

What the earlier poster, and now you, stated is far off from the point in my post. In my post I said, "One could use this (data) to argue their point or use the data to realize that what's occurring is complicated and there is no one specific solution" and, "There are others ways to look at the same data." The approach CA is using is different than the approach FL is using. It will be interesting to watch this data and see what occurs. Who knows what is best. If/when another variant comes along things may swing widely.

In the two charts mentioned in the original post the purpose was to show that one can find a data set to make a point. Arguing a position based on one data set is silly. I was not searching for data that "I liked" as you stated. I was showing that there is data that one could use to argue a point.

At the end I stated, "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."

Yet here we are, discussing things that weren't said.

  

image.png.6f4ff8ac0f7ad1c12d570e3a4c4432ef.png

 

image.png.a867fd96642a45c8206b559914de9e4d.png

Share this post


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

Interesting statement. What is the cite to show that?

Well, if a vaccinated person doesn't get sick, then they can't spread it.

When a breakthrough infection does occur, the person is sick for a shorter period of time.
So they are infectious for a shorter time.

Less chance of getting sick, shorter time frame of being infectious if one does get sick.
Lower chance of spreading.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0607-mrna-reduce-risks.html

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