Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Dr Zelenko on Israel National News, May 21, 2020 — forthcoming paper ~ two weeks?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Dr Zelenko expects to be in publication along with some German colleagues, in about two weeks. In the following video (pardon quality issues):

. . . he asks, in effect, isn’t it standard to treat a disease as early as possible, so why the strange difference here? He makes a comparison to how a fire can flash over into a much more dangerous stage and notes how much easier it is to hit it while it is small. He expresses a measure of anger with medical and political establishments, /do allow for that.

He identifies that by the time people are at a Doctor’s office they are likely to be about day 5 in the disease process, on the verge of an explosion in viral load with attendant damage to the body.

He estimates turnaround time at about 3 days on tests, thus if you wait you likely have had serious damage due to explosion in viral load with attendant cell destruction to produce those viruses; linked doubtless, is immune response which can spin out of control in a potentially fatal cytokine storm.

He points to manageable toxicity and safety then suggests, go on the drug cocktail, then pull back if there is no need.

An implication of his discussion is what we may call the U-model of such a disease as this. As came up in a current UD thread:

The idea is that a fast-mover disease like this triggers a U-shaped trend (with a potentially catastrophic descending arm), where the crisis is the bend. Those who fail to make it, unfortunately die . . . a reverse J as the rising arm has been frustrated. Recovery then takes an onward period so recovery statistics lag death statistics, part of the epidemiologist’s headaches. Of course, relapses can move us to a W . . . double U . . . etc. So, we have a simple descriptive model of the trend of such an illness. [This is similar to the plucking model of recession in economics.] The stitch in time factor is, to hit the process early in the descending arm, so the U is shallow; you will probably recall the question of building up one’s “resistance” to colds, Flu and the like. In the context of Ivermectin, its preliminary indication is that it can help to pluck back up from further down the descending arm. And of course hospitalisation is an index of being fairly far down the arm, ICU being a yet worse sign. Intubation and Ventilation are grim signs.

While we wait on his announced publication, we may wish to discuss. END

PS: An interesting second vid comes from India, courtesy Tech for Luddites:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8HtWHAr9rI

PPS: Here is the screen clip, June 3rd:

Comments
Yes, the more data we have to compare, the lower the IFR is becoming.ET
June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
Jerry
Why not compare each of the 50 states?
I would support making as many comparisons as possible. I would think any policy maker that didn’t would be negligent.Ed George
June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
JVL:
All of those things arose via unguided and natural processes.
That is about all unguided and natural processes are good for.ET
June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
ET: So you want to fight the process you think is responsible for your existence? Really? Too funny. I do because it's heartless and totally devoid of empathy. Cancer is perfectly natural, it happens. But I fight it, I look for ways to combat it. I hope to find ways so that fewer and fewer people have to lose their lives because of it. Same with polio, rubella, measles, malaria, ebola, SARS, MERS, COVID-19, etc. All of those things arose via unguided and natural processes. And I think we should fight them at every step of the way.JVL
June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT
Comparing Canada and the United States is probably meaningless. Why not compare each of the 50 states? Take Texas with a similar population as Canada (29 million vs 37 million and a much higher population density; 108 per sq mile vs 10.2 per sq mile). The deaths per million in Texas is 63 and in Canada it is 205. Now I know most of Canada is wilderness but if you eliminate 80% of Canada's area, the population density of Texas is still twice as much. So I would not bring up Canada.jerry
June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
Ooops duplicate deleted.ET
June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
So you want to fight the process you think is responsible for your existence? Really? Too funny.ET
June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
ET: It’s funny how the people who cherish natural selection bristle when they see it in action. I'm not bristling; I want to fight it as much as possible because it's a heartless, cruel and indifferent process. It wastes countless number of lives and allows eons of agony and waste.JVL
June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
It's funny how the people who cherish natural selection bristle when they see it in action.ET
June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
LoL! The only thing anyone got wrong was what is required, nutrition-wise, for proper, healthy living. It is very telling that vitamin D deficient people are among the worst hit, for example. Hopefully someone does a study on the efficacy of OTC supplements with respect to fighting of viruses. It would be interesting to know what the supplement intake of all asymptomatic carriers is. We are an unhealthy race of humans. That is what we got wrong.ET
June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
Ed George: If you look at the rate of decline of new cases after the Initial peak, the US jumps out in that it’s rate of decline is very low when compared to almost every other country. Even countries with much larger densities. Yes, I know. But I don't think (my memory may be at fault here) that Canada's implementation of lockdowns or isolation orders was much different than that of the US. If it was then that would clearly be a factor. Like I said, the US and the UK really screwed the pooch regarding COVID-19. The US now has had over 110,000 deaths and is rapidly approaching 2 million total declared cases.JVL
June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
JVL
I would have expected Canada’s results to be similar to the US’s so it may be down to geographic factors like population density. That comparison seems a bit more complicated.
If you look at the rate of decline of new cases after the Initial peak, the US jumps out in that it’s rate of decline is very low when compared to almost every other country. Even countries with much larger densities.Ed George
June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
ET: We have larger cities. And those larger cities have a higher population density that Canada’s large cities. Comparable to some European countries. And India and China are even further along those scales. The US (and the UK I have to say) have screwed the pooch regarding COVID-19. Germany seems to have got it right. I would have expected Canada's results to be similar to the US's so it may be down to geographic factors like population density. That comparison seems a bit more complicated.JVL
June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
Acartia Eddie:
Because of a disproportionate infection rate, the US has 60% more deaths per capita than Canada.
We have larger cities. And those larger cities have a higher population density that Canada's large cities.
This in a country who’s president claims that his response to the pandemic was “prefect”.
And the Governors' weren't. Comparing Canada to the USA is a fool's errand designed to deceive.ET
June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
Jerry
That could be over a year and in the mean time millions might die from other causes due to the shutdown.
Who said anything about a shutdown.? Canada is not completely locked down, and is opening more things every day.Ed George
June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
Until a vaccine is available, the lower the rate of community spread, the fewer people die.
That could be over a year and in the mean time millions might die from other causes due to the shutdown. We do not know how to monitor these types of deaths on going but we know they will happen.jerry
June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
Jerry
Is that good or bad? And if so why?
Until a vaccine is available, the lower the rate of community spread, the fewer people die. Because of a disproportionate infection rate, the US has 60% more deaths per capita than Canada. This in a country who’s president claims that his response to the pandemic was “prefect”.Ed George
June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
Is the Boulware study meaningless? It is obvious that most of the studies making the news are meaningless because they are looking at patients far along in the process. But is Boulware guilty of the same thing by choosing an irrelevant population. The average age is 40 and the oldest is 51. They are not the population of interest which is 60+ or younger people with comorbidities. He is focused on getting the disease when the focus should be on hospitalization or not. So Boulware chose a population that is very unlikely to become hospitalized. Zelenko's protocol. 1) Treat the high risk group which are 60+ or younger with already existing serious illness. 2) give the high risk group HCQ, zinc and Azithromycin immediately 3) Let the low risk population fight the virus with their immune system but monitor.jerry
June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
Canada’s number of new daily cases has decreased by almost 60%
Is that good or bad? And if so why? What is the proper metric for monitoring this disease? Is it cases, hospitalization or death? And over what time period is this metric to be measured?jerry
June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
In the last month, Canada’s number of new daily cases has decreased by almost 60%. The US has declined by less than 1%. Food for thought.Ed George
June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
Chirp, chirp, chirp. Verrrrry interesting indeed in aftermath of the retraction of the Lancet paper. KFkairosfocus
June 6, 2020
June
06
Jun
6
06
2020
02:44 AM
2
02
44
AM
PDT
WUWT, Leo Goldstein, May 2: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/02/pseudo-science-behind-the-assault-on-hydroxychloroquine/ >> Pseudo-Science behind the Assault on Hydroxychloroquine Leo Goldstein / May 2, 2020 This is a research article published as information for health care professionals and public officials, and for an open peer review. It is not medical advice. Summary I reviewed the scientific literature on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), azithromycin (AZ), and their use for COVID-19. My conclusions: HCQ-based treatments are effective in treating COVID-19, unless started too late. Studies, cited in opposition, have been misinterpreted, invalid, or worse. HCQ and AZ are some of the most tested and safest prescription drugs. Severe COVID-19 frequently causes cardiac effects, including heart arrhythmia. QTc prolonging drugs might amplify this tendency. Millions of people regularly take drugs having strong QTc prolongation effect, and neither FDA nor CDC bother to warn them. HCQ+AZ combination, probably has a mild QTc prolongation effect. Concerns over its negative effects, however minor, can be addressed by respecting contra-indications. Effectiveness of HCQ-based treatment for COVID-19 is hampered by conditions that are presented as precautions, delaying the onset of treatment. For examples, some states require that COVID-19 patients be treated with HCQ exclusively in hospital settings. The COVID-19 Treatment Panel of NIH evaded disclosure of the massive financial links of its members to Gilead Sciences, the manufacturer of a competing drug remdesivir. Among those who failed to disclose such links are 2 out of 3 of its co-chairs. Despite all the attempts by certain authorities to prevent COVID-19 treatment with HCQ and HCQ+AZ, both components are approved by FDA, and doctors can prescribe them for COVID-19. [MORE]>> A month later, this seems to stand up fairly well. By sharp contrast with what led to hasty official actions, to scare stories and bans but has now had to be retracted. KF PS: Letter of objections re Lancet paper https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6933411-Open-Letter-the-Statistical-Analysis-and-Data.htmlkairosfocus
June 5, 2020
June
06
Jun
5
05
2020
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
Muy interesante, no . . .kairosfocus
June 5, 2020
June
06
Jun
5
05
2020
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
Very interesting to see . . .kairosfocus
June 5, 2020
June
06
Jun
5
05
2020
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
Jawa, 195: >>“A first-year statistics major could tell you about major flaws in the design of the analysis,” one expert said.>> KFkairosfocus
June 4, 2020
June
06
Jun
4
04
2020
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT
KF @194: “How did this ever pass peer review?” Is there any guarantee that peer review is accurate, seriously impartial, unbiased, careful?jawa
June 4, 2020
June
06
Jun
4
04
2020
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT
BO'H: Given today's development, prezactly. KFkairosfocus
June 4, 2020
June
06
Jun
4
04
2020
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT
F/N: There is another IHU Abstract preprint, on signs of CV19: https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/predictive-values-of-olfactory-and-gustative-disorders-for-the-diagnosis-of-covid-19-a-cohort-of-3497-patients-and-432-healthcare-workers/ >>Abstract : Objectives– Since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, olfactory and gustative disorders, up to anosmia and ageusia have been described in infected patients. The study aim’s was to measure the prevalence and the predictive values of recent smell and taste loss in a cohort of patients and health care workers (HCWs) tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods– This retrospective study was conducted in Marseille, France, at the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection. A total of 3,497 adults presented for SARS-CoV-2 PCR between 24 March and 25 April 2020. 432 healthcare workers (HCWs) also asked to be tested by PCR plus a serology assay. The following question was asked before being tested: “have you lost your sense of smell or taste in the past two months?” Results– SARS-CoV-2 PCR was positive in 673/3,497 patients (19.24%). The prevalence of the loss of smell and/or taste in COVID-19 patients was 356/673(53%), higher than in non-infected patients (257/2,824; 9.1%, p LT 0.001). The positive predictive value (PPV) for the diagnosis of COVID-19 was 67.15 % when smell and taste disorders were reported. A total of 432 HCWs were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR and serology. The PPV of olfactory and/or gustatory dysfunction was 58.08%, and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 89.01%. Regarding the diagnosis of COVID-19 in 432 HCWs, the PPV of olfactory and/or gustatory dysfunction was 73%, and the NPV was 99%. Conclusions Questioning patients and HCWs about their sense of smell and taste could be useful in countries where testing is politically or technically limited.>> KFkairosfocus
June 4, 2020
June
06
Jun
4
04
2020
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
F/N2, I note again from earlier today at 186: >> immediately as we see resort to placebo control exercises in the face of such a fast moving, fatal disease, we have solid reason to question the prudence, ethics and logical soundness of relevant experimenters and decision-makers. They have failed the first duties of reason standard at the outset, at design phase. Duties, to truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, neighbour [life! safety! tort!], fairness, justice, etc. This, for reasons explained many times and as the Kennedy School of Government paper again excerpted in 148 above summarises. So, we have little reason to trust credibility or soundness of analysis going forward. Indeed, on track record, it seems that there are systematic biases that build in failures and improper — on epistemology, inductive logic and evidence grounds — locking out of material factors and facts. This, with life on the line in an existential crisis. If you make a crooked yardstick your standard of upright, straight and accurate you will systematically reject what is truly such. >> There are pretty serious further questions to be answered. KFkairosfocus
June 4, 2020
June
06
Jun
4
04
2020
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT
F/N: NBC news gives some details, of ccourse speaking as though there is no good reason to acknowledge signs of effectiveness. Clipping: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/lancet-retracts-large-study-hydroxychloroquine-n1225091 >>The Lancet retracts large study on hydroxychloroquine "A first-year statistics major could tell you about major flaws in the design of the analysis," one expert said. A large study suggesting hydroxychloroquine does not benefit COVID-19 patients, and may even increase deaths, has been retracted. But that doesn't mean hydroxychloroquine does — or does not June 4, 2020, 4:42 PM -04 By Erika Edwards The medical journal The Lancet on Thursday retracted a large study on the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 because of potential flaws in the research data. The study, published two weeks ago, found no benefit to the drug — and suggested its use may even increase the risk of death. Thursday's retraction doesn't mean that the drug is helpful — or harmful — with respect to the coronavirus. Rather, the study authors were unable to confirm that the data set was accurate.>> Some pretty serious explanations by authors, Lancet, WHO and others are in order. KFkairosfocus
June 4, 2020
June
06
Jun
4
04
2020
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT
1 2 3 8

Leave a Reply