BREAKING: President Trump, Mrs Trump & Ms Hicks are Positive for CV-19

_{kairosfocus
October 2, 2020

News Highlights

1}_{Categories
News Highlights}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Tweets:

Tonight, @ FLOTUS and I tested positive for COVID-19. We will begin our quarantine and recovery process immediately. We will get through this TOGETHER!
— Donald J. Trump (@ realDonaldTrump) October 2, 2020

Hope Hicks, who has been working so hard without even taking a small break, has just tested positive for Covid 19. Terrible! The First Lady and I are waiting for our test results. In the meantime, we will begin our quarantine process!
— Donald J. Trump (@ realDonaldTrump) October 2, 2020

When you thought an extraordinarily chaotic year could not pull out another twist. Well, here it is. END

PS: As broad context

PPS: For reference on HCQ

Also:

PPPS: A sampler from a former CEO, Twitter (cf discussion at Forbes [also here]) commented on by Michelle Malkin, a few days ago:

See, now, that this is NOT a normal silly season cycle?

PPPPS: A summary on the U/L trajectory of CV19:

Comments

An example of medical ignorance leading to bogus conclusions is a study just published from Italy on patients in hospital during March.
Remdesivir use in patients requiring mechanical ventilation due to COVID-19 The use of HCQ was not associated with a significant clinical benefit in our cohort. This result was consistent in all the analyses performed. The lack of clinical effect, despite early use of the drug after hospitalization, is discouraging and suggests that the prognosis of patients in IMV is not influenced by HCQ. Notably, the use of HCQ for COVID-19 have relied so far on undemonstrated premises and several observational studies now question its overall efficacy.
About half of the patients got HCQ only after entering the ICU and is an analysis of patients on invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) Interesting is that Remdesivir was found to have a positive effect.jerry_{October 18, 2020
October
10
Oct
18
18
2020
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

Kf, The implication of all these studies at high levels are that the medical establishment does not understand the disease. That includes some of my favorite go to people in the medical community. Just yesterday, Dr. John Campbell who has posted nearly a hundred videos on C19 came across zinc as a possibility. He is completely unaware of what is happening in a significant part of the US doctors. Dr. Seheult has not posted anything on the origin of the cytokine storm yet and its treatment nor did he pick up that Remdesivir will probably be ineffective at late stages. Drbeen (Mobeen Syed M.D, MS ) interviewed Dr. Marik in July and I only heard about it a few days ago. He also interviewed him in September. Either a lot of games are being played or a lot of ignorance. Probably a lot of both.jerry_{October 18, 2020
October
10
Oct
18
18
2020
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

This is probably TLDR (Too Long Didn't Read) A repeat with several modifications of the comment at 359 above. This is not meant to be the definitive description of C19 but an attempt to more thoroughly understand the virus and its progression. Anyone who wants to add or clarify something, please do so. ------------ This is an attempt to describe how the virus affects humans. Background, There are two stages. There is the viral replication stage and then there is the more serious inflammatory stage where there is often immune dysregulation leading to death. See OP at top of page. Within the progression there are different phases, incubation, symptomatic, early pulmonary phase and a late pulmonary phase. Essentially people do not die during the first phase. But if they can be prevented from entering the second phase, their life will be normal and go on as usual. If they enter the second phase, they have a substantial chance of dying or if they survive may have long term impairment especially of the respiratory system. As noted below, most especially the young never get to the second phase. Treatment should be specific to each stage and within each stage there can be escalation of treatments as necessary. Timing is key for treatment and should be the mantra for anyone wanting to beat this virus. Confusing treatments for one stage with the other stage has been one of the significant medical malpractices of this pandemic. One doctor has said most treating this virus do not understand what is happening within the body. FirstThe virus enters the body usually through breathing in small droplets of moisture or virus particles that are free-floating in the air. So if one avoids this one will likely not get infected. Except, there is also suspicion that virus can be picked up by touching objects on which it is present or by eating food in which it may be present. Why are we washing our hands several times a day? A Reality, The virus will not disappear and avoiding the virus forever is a fool’s dream. So a question is what to do besides awaiting for the inevitable? Some want to lockdown and wait for a vaccine but that could be long into the future and in the meantime billions of people are experiencing massive deterioration in living conditions. And everyone is leading a far from optimal life. Except maybe the Swedes. And even there they screwed up their treatment of the elderly. Very little or nothing has been offered by the medical establishment for prevention or early treatment of this virus. Especially when there are hundreds of success stories for early treatment. A big question is WHY is the medical establishment silent? Some are having amazing success in preventing hospitalization and death after entering the hospital. For example, the hospital at the Eastern Virginia Medical School had a 6% mortality rate compared to an average of 24% in the world in July of this year. And they can point to a treatment that they used that most hospitals are still failing to use in October 2020. And there are individual doctors that are having nearly 100% success with treating patients. I can point to one in New York, two in Texas and one in California. Between them they have treated over 4,000 C19 patients with only a couple deaths and a handful of hospitalizations. But they are ignored too. Second, Once the virus enters the body, it will eventually enter a cell or multiple cells. The virus cannot replicate except using a host’s cellular processes. The C19 virus mainly uses the ACE2 receptor to enter a cell but I believe there are other pathways into the cell. (Not all cell have these ACE2 receptors but the lung has them and so does the lining of the blood stream as well as many other cell types) So drugs or treatments that frustrate this or other paths of entry will prevent the virus from accessing the cellular machinery for replicating. HCQ is thought to do this, so it could be effective by preventing the virus from entering a cell and multiplying. Other drugs/treatments may do the same thing. Ivermectin is thought to be one but there are others. Third, the virus will start replicating in a cell and could spread to millions of cells. A human has several trillion cells. Anything that interferes with this replication and is not harmful would prevent the virus from spreading in the body. Zinc is thought to prevent this replication and so apparently does Remdesivir. The issue is how to get zinc or other anti-replicating treatments into the cell. HCQ is thought to facilitate the entrance of zinc into the cell and as such is a facilitator called an ionophore for zinc. Quercetin and other supplements such as EGCg are also thought to be zinc ionophores. How Remdesivir gets into the cell, I do not know. The fact that Remdesivir was used by Trump early and has been shown to not be too useful for hospitalized patients may indicate it should be introduced early. It is however very expensive and currently only administered intravenously, making it difficult if not impossible for home consumption. Fourth, the immune system is thought to actually kill live viruses but takes time to do so. This means that the virus will spread inside a cell and to other cells before the immune system can overcome the virus. The ability of the immune system to do this quickly depends on its overall strength. So individuals with weak immune systems will take much longer to kill the virus and for some it may be impossible to kill it. Research has shown that there are few live virus particles 8-10 days after infection. But up to this time there may be nearly a billion live virus gene copies per mL. So trying to kill the virus after this time is probably a waste of time. But what remains is a large number of virus parts. Giving Remdesivir at this time is dumb but doctors all around the world in ICUs are prescribing it. Gilead is making a fortune off of this misinformation. But as mentioned above, Remdesivir may be useful early on but because it is a 5 day treatment done intravenously can only be done for a few in a hospital. Innate Immunity One important issue is that some people are thought to possess antibodies and T-cells that produce antibodies quickly to fight corona viruses. Some have estimated that the number of people with such cells and antibodies is over 20% and maybe as high as 50% in some populations. This may be why some populations around the world have showed little susceptibility to the virus. Remember the Diamond Princess where only a handful of elderly people died, even though they were quarantined together in the intimacy of a cruise ship. Did many of the Japanese passengers have immunity to the virus? People who get the virus and clear it also seem to be immune. There have been a handful of people reported to get the virus again but they are only a few out of over a hundred million confirmed cases. Some have speculated that this immunity is not forever and may only last a few months. However, there seems to be innate immunities or lack of it in populations for various viruses. The 1918 Influenza hit those born between 1890 and 1900 the hardest with the implications that those from other cohorts had an innate immunity to this virus due to exposure during their early years. Many people in the viral replication phase will clear the virus without getting any symptoms and are called asymptomatic. Others get symptoms that are mild and then they disappear. Most people under 60 years of age will fall into these two groups (99.9+%). A small portion of these people will progress to the second stage of the disease. But some age groups are much more vulnerable. Older people often have less developed immune systems so many are less able to fight the virus at first. Influenza strikes older people more readily too. This leads to higher loads of the virus in such individuals because the immune system does not kill the virus quickly. This leaves much higher dead remnants of the virus in their bodies. This will be important for the second stage of the disease. Most older people will also not progress to the second stage but a much higher percentage will than those under 60. Eating right, having less body mass, having fewer other serious medical conditions that weaken the immune system are thought helpful for a strong immune system. So vitamins C and D are thought to be very helpful as well as other supplements. Fifth, those with weak immune systems will take much longer to fight off the virus which means they will have exponentially more virus remnants in the body as mentioned above and are more likely to enter the second stage. The immune system seeing all these remnants does not distinguish between live and dead viruses and goes into overdrive. Actually most if not all of the virus is now dead. But these remnants produces an overreaction called a cytokine storm that starts the pulmonary phase and this is what kills many individuals infected even if the virus is not alive in the person anymore. Treating the patient at this point with antiviral approaches is probably useless but that is what has been done. When these anti-viral approaches do not work, the whole anti-viral approach is denigrated. So prescribing HCQ or other anti-virals at this stage is probably pointless. This may explain why many hospital-based studies show little or no benefit for HCQ. It does not mean HCQ will not work on some hospitalized patients but will probably not work very well on those in the later stages of the disease. But this is where most of the anti-HCQ studies have been done. Which means they are completely irrelevant for evaluating HCQ’s usefulness early in the virus progression. Evaluating a drug when it is known not to do much good is a pointless and essentially a bogus study. It is thought some types of steroids are effective against the cytokine storm. But in reality the treatment recommended by the medical community is still mainly palliative, and depends on the patient being able to withstand the cytokine storm. Though currently most are prescribing these steroids. The Eastern Virginia Medical School favors the steroid Methylprednisolone and has research showing it is much more effective than Dexamethasone. The latter got a lot of publicity from a study done at Oxford on late treatment of C19. However there are clinical studies showing Methylprednisolone is much more effective at reducing death, in some up to 75%. Sixth, the entry into the cell via the ACE2 receptors causes other problems that lead to death. This entry negates the effect of the ACE2 receptors and leads to coagulant factors being released in the bloodstream, causing clots and heart issues. This has caused a lot of the deaths. Treatment here is completely different since it is treating the coagulation issue. HCQ would have little value for this.
Conclusion: Timing is Key and Treating Early is Essential
So what is Effective
If someone is going to recommend for or against something then it should be based on an understanding of the progression of the disease. Instead we get blanket condemnations without any reference to what is happening at a particular stage of the virus. Such blanket judgments are not helpful for anyone.
Another takeaway from the published research is that people in the medical community do not understand the disease they are treating. The best example of this the recently published WHO study which administered drugs at the wrong time of the virus progression.jerry_{October 18, 2020
October
10
Oct
18
18
2020
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

Jerry, here is a study on hospitalisation cases across drugs including Remdesivir (I note the HCQ alone suggesting non-use of cocktails):
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.15.20209817v1 Repurposed antiviral drugs for COVID-19; interim WHO SOLIDARITY trial results WHO Solidarity Trial Consortium, Hongchao Pan, Richard Peto, Quarraisha Abdool Karim, Marissa Alejandria, Ana Maria Henao Restrepo, Cesar Hernandez Garcia, Marie Paule Kieny, Reza Malekzadeh, Srinivas Murthy, Marie-Pierre Preziosi, Srinath Reddy, Mirta Roses, Vasee Sathiyamoorthy, John-Arne Rottingen, Soumya Swaminathan doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.15.20209817 This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice. AbstractInfo/HistoryMetrics Preview PDF Abstract BACKGROUND WHO expert groups recommended mortality trials in hospitalized COVID-19 of four re-purposed antiviral drugs. METHODS Study drugs were Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, Lopinavir (fixed-dose combination with Ritonavir) and Interferon-?1a (mainly subcutaneous; initially with Lopinavir, later not). COVID-19 inpatients were randomized equally between whichever study drugs were locally available and open control (up to 5 options: 4 active and local standard-of-care). The intent-to-treat primary analyses are of in-hospital mortality in the 4 pairwise comparisons of each study drug vs its controls (concurrently allocated the same management without that drug, despite availability). Kaplan-Meier 28-day risks are unstratified; log-rank death rate ratios (RRs) are stratified for age and ventilation at entry. RESULTS In 405 hospitals in 30 countries 11,266 adults were randomized, with 2750 allocated Remdesivir, 954 Hydroxychloroquine, 1411 Lopinavir, 651 Interferon plus Lopinavir, 1412 only Interferon, and 4088 no study drug. Compliance was 94-96% midway through treatment, with 2-6% crossover. 1253 deaths were reported (at median day 8, IQR 4-14). Kaplan-Meier 28-day mortality was 12% (39% if already ventilated at randomization, 10% otherwise). Death rate ratios (with 95% CIs and numbers dead/randomized, each drug vs its control) were: Remdesivir RR=0.95 (0.81-1.11, p=0.50; 301/2743 active vs 303/2708 control), Hydroxychloroquine RR=1.19 (0.89-1.59, p=0.23; 104/947 vs 84/906), Lopinavir RR=1.00 (0.79-1.25, p=0.97; 148/1399 vs 146/1372) and Interferon RR=1.16 (0.96-1.39, p=0.11; 243/2050 vs 216/2050). No study drug definitely reduced mortality (in unventilated patients or any other subgroup of entry characteristics), initiation of ventilation or hospitalisation duration. CONCLUSIONS These Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, Lopinavir and Interferon regimens appeared to have little or no effect on hospitalized COVID-19, as indicated by overall mortality, initiation of ventilation and duration of hospital stay. The mortality findings contain most of the randomized evidence on Remdesivir and Interferon, and are consistent with meta-analyses of mortality in all major trials. (Funding: WHO. Registration: ISRCTN83971151, NCT04315948)
Why is there such extraordinary resistance to recognising that the time to hit a viral disease prone to complications is AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE? And given the suspiciously scanty reference to HCQ, as opposed to cocktail, I thing the statistics become even more dubious. We are seeing through a window into the deep breakdown of quality of thought. Is it any strange thing to see similar patterns across the board, including on say the design inference on tested, reliable signs? Widespread sub par reasoning is commonplace. KFkairosfocus_{October 18, 2020
October
10
Oct
18
18
2020
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT}

Thus, 14% of patients who took cyclosporine died compared to 22% for those who took hydroxychloroquine. Same rate of 22% of deaths for those who were treated with an antiviral. Finally, 28% of patients treated with a corticosteroid died, 33% after treatment with tozilizumab
Dr. Marik of EVMS said the C19 progresses in two stages. First is a viral replication phase and second is an immune dysfunction stage and happens after the virus is essentially dead in all patients. So using an anti viral after about 13 days is stupid and is counter productive. This means all these tests of anti-virals are a waste of time and what will work in the second phase where most people die is treatments to stop the extreme inflammation. The anti-virals are extremely useful when used early because they prevent the movement toward the inflammatory stage. So all these hospitalized studies that some keep on quoting are bogus and Dr. Marik says most of these medical people who designed them do not understand the disease they are treating. They are a waste of time and counterproductive in that they mislead doctors on how to treat the disease. An example is that Remdesivir has shown zero effectiveness when used late in treatment and the result is just as one would expect. It is meant for the viral replication phase which is long over by this time. Gilead does not tell people this and has gotten a lot of money for this misuse of their drug. I'm going to speculate why cyclosporine is effective and I am certainly not a doctor but people should ask medical people about it. It is an immune suppressive drug and the problem while in the hospital is an over active immune system. So it might be a question to ask a doctor knowledgeable in immune responses.jerry_{October 17, 2020
October
10
Oct
17
17
2020
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

A team of Spanish researchers from Quirón Hospital in Madrid has tested several drugs on 600 patients, including hydroxychloroquine. But it was cyclosporine, a treatment that prevents acute rejection during organ transplants, that had the best effects. According to the team at Quirón Hospital in Madrid, cyclosporine would give patients with Covid an "81% more chance of not dying" from the coronavirus. This drug usually used to prevent acute rejection of organ transplants could, according to its authors, "reduce the hyperinflammatory phase of Covid-19". The study published in the journal The Lancet on October 15 analyzed the treatments of 600 patients admitted to the Madrid hospital from March 10 to April 15 and followed until May 12, date of the last event concerning one of these patients. (death or discharge from hospital, this is not specified). Several treatments were tested during this period even as Spain was facing a first ultra-violent wave of Covid-19: hydroxychloroquine, antivirals such as Lopinavir-ritonavir, antibiotics, corticosteroids and drugs acting in the inflammatory phase of the disease such as tozilizumab and cyclosporine. More impressive results than hydroxychloroquine The most surprising result of the study is that the patients who received cyclosporine had a higher survival rate than those who did not. Thus, 14% of patients who took cyclosporine died compared to 22% for those who took hydroxychloroquine. Same rate of 22% of deaths for those who were treated with an antiviral. Finally, 28% of patients treated with a corticosteroid died, 33% after treatment with tozilizumab. https://www.lindependant.fr/2020/10/17/covid-19-la-cyclosporine-nouveau-medicament-miracle-contre-le-coronavirus-9145915.phprhampton7_{October 17, 2020
October
10
Oct
17
17
2020
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

Bob
Mac might not be a doctor who has treated patients with COVID-19.
But I do play one on TV. :)Mac McTavish_{October 17, 2020
October
10
Oct
17
17
2020
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

ET @ 386 - Mac might not be a doctor who has treated patients with COVID-19. That alone would mean he couldn't claim the money.Bob O'H_{October 17, 2020
October
10
Oct
17
17
2020
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

You were the one who claimed that the RCD trials were bogus because they involved hospitalized patients, not me.
They are bogus in certain situations and thus bogus to argue to certain conclusions. Namely, they are bogus to argue against a treatment and are irrelevant for such an argument. You surely must be able to understand this. I am not arguing against the value of RCTs. I am arguing that the ones used are irrelevant for the conclusion made and thus bogus (they may be also bogus because they are very flawed studies.) I am also arguing that RCTs are inappropriate for evaluating a treatment where one part of the test could die. How difficult is it to understand this? I am also arguing against these particular RCTs are flawed because they gave potential lethal doses to the patients. If a patient is in extremis, they do not need a potentially lethal dosage of a drug especially when no one is recommending the drug be given in these amounts. I could give you things to read and watch but you show no evidence of ever doing so. Here is one showing HCQ works in hospital situation for some and discusses the dosage problem. https://bit.ly/2Qv3BqH This alone would disprove the proposition that HCQ does not work. But supports an alternative proposition that HCQ works in some cases. So one proposition is proven false and one is supported. The proposition that HCQ does not work is negated over and over. And the studies used to support this propositions also have serious flaws. Just because they are an RCT does not make them a valid or relevant study. I suggest all read my comment at 359. It was an attempt to outline what is happening with the virus and done in a parking lot while waiting for my wife to finish her dentist appointment. So it could be better and more complete but it does lay out many of the issues which critics ignore.jerry_{October 17, 2020
October
10
Oct
17
17
2020
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

Mac, your cowardly quote-mining just proves that you are an insipid troll. And the fact that neither you nor anyone else can claim the $200,000 says it all, really.ET_{October 17, 2020
October
10
Oct
17
17
2020
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

Jerry
Again an irrational comment.
Really? You were the one who claimed that the RCD trials were bogus because they involved hospitalized patients, not me.Mac McTavish_{October 17, 2020
October
10
Oct
17
17
2020
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

By your own argument, they are bogus.
Again an irrational comment. You prove my point by making such comments. There is a huge difference between arguing against something vs arguing for something. People are using cherry picked hospitalized studies to show negative results or lack of results. That is arguing against. But those who make this argument are ignoring that it does work in several instances. They would have to explain why it does work in many hospitalized cases before they could make the conclusion it does not work. But they don't. Especially when the studies cited in support of not working are giving lethal doses of HCQ. So you cannot argue that HCQ does not work in hospitalized patients because there is no way to know the extent of the viral progression. But you can show that there are studies which show it has an effect even when it is in an extreme condition which then negates the negative conclusion. They are two very different logical conclusions and thought processes. You have a background in science and you continue to make these fake logical arguments. Hospitalized patients represent a wide range of exposure to the virus and its progression. It is likely a large number of hospitalized patients are past the viral replication phase especially if they have a weak immune system and are into another phase of the infection. It is unlikely HCQ would have much effect here. The issue is the cytokine storm or over reaction of the immune system to dead viral particles. For early application which is the recommended time for treatment, it is unlikely the virus has progressed too far. These would be the valid studies if done with people likely to progress further with the virus. But the couple controlled studies done here were extremely flawed, using the wrong patient population and even showed beneficial outcomes for HCQ. There will always be individuals who react differently but if the numbers are large enough, the information becomes clear. Why do you continue to ignore the obvious? Especially since it is safe and inexpensive. There is no reason not to use HCQ in the right dosages even if it is not effective. But there is study after study showing it has a positive effect. So objections to it become more irrational. I have just put on a clean T-shirt and it says
Two Things are Infinite The Universe and Human Stupidity And I'm not sure about the Universe Albert Einstein
Comments like yours and posts by RHampton are support for Einstein's assertion.jerry_{October 17, 2020
October
10
Oct
17
17
2020
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

Jerry
Easy. If the study was done on hospitalized patients, they are bogus studies.
Most of the retrospective studies that purport to show a benefit of HCQ, including the seminal study, were performed on hospitalized patients. By your own argument, they are bogus.Mac McTavish_{October 17, 2020
October
10
Oct
17
17
2020
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

All without the use of HCQ.
On cue, another irrelevant comment. New Zealand has not gotten rid of the virus or found a way to treat it but that does not stop the non sequiturs. New Zealand just has a whole population waiting to get infected. I lived in New Zealand for a year. In Christchurch on the South Island. It is one of the most isolated countries in the world with a very small population. And by the way, I in no way believe that HCQ is the only way or the best way to treat the virus. I just find it absurd, the comments from people here claiming it has no effect. As I said above the interesting thing is the continually absurdity of people here who criticize without basis in any fact.jerry_{October 17, 2020
October
10
Oct
17
17
2020
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

New Zealland’s Arden wins a landslide election, largely due to her response to COVID-19. https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/17/asia/new-zealand-election-2020-results-intl-hnk/index.html All without the use of HCQ.Mac McTavish_{October 17, 2020
October
10
Oct
17
17
2020
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

though refactored studies RH7 has predictably ignored showed some effect there too.
I assume you mean hospitalized studies. Yes, there are even hospitalized studies showing HCQ has a positive effect. All one has to do is go to https://c19study.com/ But I doubt RHampton has done so and I am not sure of his English skills. I believe it is not his first language. For example look at comment #36 where he admits I have refuted him every time. I don't think he knows what he is writing a lot of the time. He just copies and pastes if he finds a negative article and doesn't care if it is fake news or not. As I have said many times the most interesting thing is not the science but the motivations of the people posting the irrelevant/irrational comments or fake news comments. Why do they continue to do so? Most would be embarrassed to do so.jerry_{October 17, 2020
October
10
Oct
17
17
2020
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

Dr. Paul Marek discusses his serendipitous discovery of a potential cure for sepsis. It would never have been approved for treatment of sepsis because those not given it would probably die. Exactly same scenario as for C19. He discusses the discovery and the absurdness of requiring a RCT. Interview from 3 years ago. https://bit.ly/2IG9sZx Dr. Marik is at the forefront of finding treatments for C19 as he is the author of the treatments at EVMS (Eastern Virginia Medical School.) Will provide more links to him later as he is proposing a completely different approach to treating C19 early called the MATH+ approach.jerry_{October 17, 2020
October
10
Oct
17
17
2020
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

Jerry, though refactored studies RH7 has predictably ignored showed some effect there too. KFkairosfocus_{October 17, 2020
October
10
Oct
17
17
2020
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT}

Prove this absurd statement
Easy. If the study was done on hospitalized patients, they are bogus studies. Nearly all the RCTs were done on hospitalized patients. In the study you just referred to above by WHO a large percentage of the patients were given HCQ while on respirators and given lethal doses of the drug. All were hospitalized. The ones done on early acquisition were done on the wrong patients, ones likely to recover from the virus without any treatment. So they could not show any effect of HCQ on the virus. They also have several other problems. For example, Fauci and others keep on bringing up the Boulware studies which were done remotely on young people and actually show a positive effect for HCQ on their revised criteria. I suggest you name a study and we can discuss it. One of the problems is finding subjects for a study. It’s easy to get patients after admittance to a hospital but not before. But hospitalized patients already are past the stage of most viral replication and HCQ will have little effect here. You and others have been told this several times but you and others persist in ignoring how the virus progresses and affects people.
I have never heard this objection from a medical scientist.
I suggest you read links provided for you. We have been providing them since late March, almost 7 months ago.jerry_{October 17, 2020
October
10
Oct
17
17
2020
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT}

Prove this absurd statement “The RCTs associated with HCQ are all bogus studies because they could not do them correctly” I have never heard this objection from a medical scientist.rhampton7_{October 16, 2020
October
10
Oct
16
16
2020
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT}

Some doctors are getting restless in Europe. Downgrading C19 to the flu? https://twitter.com/EatlovePray11/status/1316778274983419904 For the full video, it’s here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3LVHUkVA4Ajerry_{October 16, 2020
October
10
Oct
16
16
2020
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT}

RCTs are not used by Science in general, but by medical Science
Yet few medical recommendations are based on RCTs. It’s not that they’re not useful, it’s that it is often impossible to do them right without harm to the participants. In using these tests for C19 some would have to die. The RCTs associated with HCQ are all bogus studies because they could not do them correctly. So they used improper situations and bad drug application in their execution making them useless. And they killed people. The sad thing is that they knew they were conducting false studies leading to people dying because of the fake results generated. Which leads to the question, WHY? And then we get people defending these fake studies that have led to people dying just to make a political point.jerry_{October 16, 2020
October
10
Oct
16
16
2020
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

RCTs are not used by Science in general, but by medical Science. Social scientists use RCTs too, but that’s a whole different discussion. If you want to understand why that is so, read this Evolution of Clinical Research: A History Before and Beyond James Lind https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149409/rhampton7_{October 16, 2020
October
10
Oct
16
16
2020
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT}

Last Saturday, Brazil’s recorded COVID-19 deaths passed the 150,000 mark, seven months after the beginning of the pandemic in the country. The grim milestone was announced by the press consortium created in June by the largest Brazilian newspapers after the government of Brazil’s fascist President Jair Bolsonaro tried to censor data related to the pandemic as part of his government’s homicidal effort to reopen the economy. Brazil has now also recorded more than 5 million cases, ranking third in the world in number of coronavirus cases behind the US and India, and second in number of deaths, trailing only the US. The country also ranks third in deaths per million inhabitants, behind Peru and Belgium. However, four of Brazil’s 27 states have a higher mortality rate than Peru, with more than a thousand deaths per million people. In reality, the numbers of cases and deaths are grossly underestimated. Brazil has been one of the countries with the least testing in the world throughout the pandemic, with a test rate of less than one per thousand inhabitants, little more than Libya, a country devastated by a decade of war. Two health ministers were dismissed by Bolsonaro in April and May for refusing to recommend the use of hydroxychloroquine. In May, then-interim Health Minister Gen. Eduardo Pazuello recommended in a ministry protocol the use of hydroxychloroquine, together with the antibiotic azithromycin, in all adult COVID-19 cases. After Pazuello was finally sworn in on September 15, the newspaper O Estado de S. Paulo reported that the Health Ministry was discussing the distribution of a “COVID-19 kit” through the Popular Pharmacy program. Besides hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, the kit would contain the fermifuge ivermectin, which also has no proven effectiveness against COVID-19. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/10/17/braz-o17.htmlrhampton7_{October 16, 2020
October
10
Oct
16
16
2020
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

Four coronavirus drugs were found to have "little or no effect" on hospitalized patients, according to preliminary results from a World Health Organization study. Anticipated findings from the WHO’s multi-country Solidarity trial were posted ahead of peer review in medRxiv on Thursday, which assessed remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, interferon and an HIV-drug combo lopinavir-ritonavir. “The main outcomes of mortality, initiation of ventilation and hospitalization duration were not clearly reduced by any study drug,” according to the study. While hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir were dropped from the WHO trial over the summer over futility, the remdesivir findings directly contrast with results from a U.S. NIH-led study, which showed to shorten patients' path to recovery by about four to five days. Those results were recently upheld by a final report, of which John Beigel, associate director of clinical research in the division of microbiology and infectious disease at NIAID, told TIME that “these data reinforce the value of Remdesivir in hospitalized patients.” The drug manufacturer of remdesivir, Gilead Sciences, released a statement voicing concerns over the WHO trial. The WHO study involved over 11,000 adults across 405 hospitals in 30 countries on multiple treatments tested against a control arm; 2,750 patients were allocated remdesivir. (The NIH study involved 1,062 patients who were randomly assigned remdesivir or a placebo for 10 days.) https://www.foxnews.com/health/four-coronavirus-treatments-remdesivir-hydroxychloroquine-flop-who-studyrhampton7_{October 16, 2020
October
10
Oct
16
16
2020
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

Couple comments:
Seattle man becomes the THIRD American to be reinfected with coronavirus after testing positive for COVID-19 twice
There have been over 8 million C19 cases in the US so 3 getting reinfected is pretty much proof that it doesn't reinfect. I expected much higher and we may get them. How many people get frequent colds? A lot. What are the chances the virus is similar each time? We don't know but it will probably be explored in the near future. My guess is that some will start investigating the virus strand that is causing cold outbreaks as well as flu and viruses like C19. Second, I just bought what looks like an interesting book on science.
The Knowledge Machine: How Irrationality Created Modern Science The Knowledge Machine revolutionizes our understanding of the origins and structure of science.
I did a search since I bought the Kindle edition. Controlled experiment rates part of one page. The word random as far as doing science did not rate a mention in the book. It did say "repeated experiment" was important but not a randomized controlled experiment. Before one complains, I understand the value of a RCT but it is not how science was done or is done exclusively or even predominantly.jerry_{October 16, 2020
October
10
Oct
16
16
2020
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

F/N: UK's Daily Mail: >>Seattle man becomes the THIRD American to be reinfected with coronavirus after testing positive for COVID-19 twice within 5 months A Seattle nursing home resident in his 60s first tested positive for the coronavirus on March 6 He was hospitalized for 40 days with severe symptoms such as fever, chills, cough, chest pain and difficulty breathing Five months later, after having moved to a different facility, he began experiencing mild symptoms again He was sent to the ER on July 29, where he tested positive for COVID-19 for a second time Genetic testing revealed the first strain was similar to the one that originated in Wuhan and the second variant came to the US from Europe By Mary Kekatos Senior Health Reporter For Dailymail.com Published: 20:16 BST, 15 October 2020 | Updated: 23:48 BST, 15 October 2020 >> There is a suggestion that antibodies from round 1 made round 2 less intense. KFkairosfocus_{October 16, 2020
October
10
Oct
16
16
2020
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

RH7, when a valid but limited and too often ethically challenged experimental design -- placebo controls -- is turned into a gold standard and used to dismiss other relevant evidence, it becomes a fallacy. This has been amply documented for many months. Your unresponsiveness only manages to show how pernicious the fallacy is. KFkairosfocus_{October 16, 2020
October
10
Oct
16
16
2020
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT}

Until we resolve the rampant vitamin and mineral deficiencies throughout human populations, we really don't have much of a chance at beating back viruses. Not without an effective vaccine, anyway. Vitamin D- 4000 IU/ day max - looking for a blood concentration of 40 nG/ mL Liposomal vitamin C- 500 mG/ twice a day (liposomal C is alleged to be better than even IV C) Zinc- Dose @ 50-75mG/ day, then to 30-50mG after a month Most likely people will also be low on the B's Quercetin if you are at risk, front line or have been exposed. Melatonin helps prevent the inflammation associated with the infection by suppressing cytokine production. It also increases T cells. See the EVMS guide for more information and details. Resolving our vitamin and mineral deficiencies will easily tame covid-19. That's why it's been so entertaining watching the madness that has ensued in 2020.ET_{October 15, 2020
October
10
Oct
15
15
2020
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT}

Two studies published Wednesday suggest that people with blood type O may have a reduced chance of catching the coronavirus and may have less severe infections thereafter. The reasons why this may be so is still unknown: A Danish study found that among 7,422 people who tested positive for Covid-19, only 38.4% were blood type O — even though, among a group of 2.2 million people who were not tested, that blood type made up 41.7% of the population. By contrast, 44.4% of group A tested positive, while in the wider Danish population that blood type makes up 42.4%… They found that blood group wasn’t a risk factor for hospitalization or death from Covid-19. Dr. Roy Silverstein from the Medical College of Wisconsin told NBC News the difference isn’t that large: “The study suggests if you have type O, you have a slightly lower risk,” Dr. Roy Silverstein, chair of medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, said. “But it’s a small decrease,” he said, adding that blood type does not equate to zero percent risk. Silverstein, who is also a former president of the American Society of Hematology, was not involved with the new studies. What’s more, Silverstein pointed out, the new research will not alter how doctors treat Covid-19 patients. A second, smaller study out of Canada looked at the severity of the infection and how that correlated with blood type: Researchers in Canada found that among 95 patients critically ill with Covid-19, a higher proportion with blood type A or AB — 84% — required mechanical ventilation compared with patients with blood group O or B, which was 61%. The Canadian study also found those with blood type A or AB had a longer stay in the intensive care unit, a median of 13.5 days, compared with those with blood group O or B, who had a median of nine days. https://hotair.com/archives/john-s-2/2020/10/15/studies-suggest-people-certain-blood-types-less-likely-get-covid-19-less-severe-infections/rhampton7_{October 15, 2020
October
10
Oct
15
15
2020
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 … 24 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply