Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If anyone is feeling too optimistic and wants to be depressed I found another fun (actually not fun) graphical representation of the progress of the disease over time in the US.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uLJkpH__os

Warning: Some may say it has political elements. Viewer discretion is advised.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, pogi said:

That is not to say that it is not relatively safe for use in other applications with proven efficacy against highly deadly diseases in high risk areas. 

Rather than saying it is safe, it needs to said as “it is safer for many people at certain dosage levels for what it prevents“ (side effects are generally less a problem than the disorder/disease).  
 

Maybe using narcotics as an example would be helpful.  Narcotics are safe for most people at lower dosages and highly useful in cases where other options are not available, but obviously they are not safe for all and the higher the dose the more dangerous they become. Therefore they should only be used under doctor supervision and if higher dosages, in a controlled setting as much as possible...and only when absolutely needed. 
 

But that can be said for tons of other drugs and many a supplement. Mixing meds and supplements can lead to dangerous situations. Iron pills can kill in higher dosages, for example.  Tylenol in higher dosages can lead liver failure and nasty deaths. Ibuprofen can result in blood not clotting even at the usual levels. So it makes sense to apply the ‘not safe till proven safe’ to every drug for a particular usage rather than assuming safe for most situations until proven dangerous.

That does not mean never using a drug off brand (or whatever that is called)***, but certainly not at higher dosages or as preventatives when there are significant side effects and/or potential significant harm at those dosage levels. 

****Doctors started using anti-Parkinson’s drugs off brand to treat RLS, but a number of doctors have done great harm when this was first being done by treating rls patients in the same way as for parkinson’s as the Rls patients should have been taking only about 1/10 of the dose as those drugs eventually augment the disorder, often permanently for most and do so faster and worse at higher dosages. I have a severe case for that very reason where originally it would have been likely seen as moderate if controlled with the drug I am on now.  My life has been dramatically altered for the worse because of doctors carelessly prescribing medication based on their experiences with patients using the drugs successfully for another disorder. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If anyone is feeling too optimistic and wants to be depressed I found another fun (actually not fun) graphical representation of the progress of the disease over time in the US.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uLJkpH__os

Warning: Some may say it has political elements. Viewer discretion is advised.

If you want to avoid the 'politics' but also see a somewhat depressing visualization of covid deaths in 2020. This video puts things in perspective.

 

Edited by bsjkki

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Rather than saying it is safe, it needs to said as “it is safer for many people at certain dosage levels for what it prevents“ (side effects are generally less a problem than the disorder/disease).  
 

Maybe using narcotics as an example would be helpful.  Narcotics are safe for most people at lower dosages and highly useful in cases where other options are not available, but obviously they are not safe for all and the higher the dose the more dangerous they become. Therefore they should only be used under doctor supervision and if higher dosages, in a controlled setting as much as possible...and only when absolutely needed. 
 

But that can be said for tons of other drugs and many a supplement. Mixing meds and supplements can lead to dangerous situations. Iron pills can kill in higher dosages, for example.  Tylenol in higher dosages can lead liver failure and nasty deaths. Ibuprofen can result in blood not clotting even at the usual levels. So it makes sense to apply the ‘not safe till proven safe’ to every drug for a particular usage rather than assuming safe for most situations until proven dangerous.

That does not mean never using a drug off brand (or whatever that is called)***, but certainly not at higher dosages or as preventatives when there are significant side effects and/or potential significant harm at those dosage levels. 

****Doctors started using anti-Parkinson’s drugs to treat RLS, but a number of doctors habe done great harm when this was first being done by treating rls patients in the same way as for rls as the Rls patients should have been taking only about 1/10 of the dose as those drugs eventually augment the disorder, often permanently for most and do so faster and worse at higher dosages. I have a severe case for that very reason where originally it would have been likely seen as moderate if controlled with the drug I am on now.  My life has been dramatically altered for the worse because of doctors carelessly prescribing medication based on their experiences with patients using the drugs successfully for another disorder. 

My daughter fired her doctor for prescribing her a drug that is not FDA approved for her condition so I understand the concerns but then other drugs are successfully used off label and help many people. My daughter was not properly warned of the risks or signs to watch for and she was placed in a potentially life threatening situation. Other countries have approved this drug for her condition. I agree we should continue to study things. Many studies were shut down based on the faulty Lancet study. That is a shame.

Every drug has side effects. I feel doctors need to be more proactive in educating their patients on the potential side effects of the medication they are taking.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

My daughter fired her doctor for prescribing her a drug that is not FDA approved for her condition so I understand the concerns but then other drugs are successfully used off label and help many people. My daughter was not properly warned of the risks or signs to watch for and she was placed in a potentially life threatening situation. Other countries have approved this drug for her condition. I agree we should continue to study things. Many studies were shut down based on the faulty Lancet study. That is a shame.

Every drug has side effects. I feel doctors need to be more proactive in educating their patients on the potential side effects of the medication they are taking.

I agree that doctors need to be more proactive in educating about potential side effects and include the patient more in the decision making process, but off-label use is not a free-for-all crap shoot.  There are ethical guidelines. 

Quote

Off-label prescribing is a common and legal practice in medicine. This practice is justified when scientific evidence suggests the efficacy and safety of a medication for an indication for which it does not have FDA approval and when the practice is supported by expert consensus or practice guidelines.

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/prescribing-label-what-should-physician-disclose/2016-06

We have no expert consensus or practice guidelines, and we are still waiting on scientific evidence to work itself out.  I believe it is unethical to push Chloroquine at this time, especially as a preventative medicine like this witch doctor working her way across the internet is doing, and as the leader of our nation has exemplified. 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I am honestly reading through studies and looking for the truth but because I am untrained and uneducated, I find it all hard to sift through. So, could the experts with knowledge debunk this article from the Yale epidemiologist and this thread with country statistics. It's hard to find the hard numbers to compare from original sources that are found in this thread. Is the data correct? Are they using statistics correctly? (Statistics are easily manipulated to say what you want them to.)

https://twitter.com/cryptonephilim/status/1288402859357171713?s=20

https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I am honestly reading through studies and looking for the truth but because I am untrained and uneducated, I find it all hard to sift through. So, could the experts with knowledge debunk this article from the Yale epidemiologist and this thread with country statistics. It's hard to find the hard numbers to compare from original sources that are found in this thread. Is the data correct? Are they using statistics correctly? (Statistics are easily manipulated to say what you want them to.)

https://twitter.com/cryptonephilim/status/1288402859357171713?s=20

https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535

 

That thread's statements on early effectiveness are unclear. They cite a recovery rate with the drug but don't compare it to recovery rate without. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/28/2020 at 11:41 AM, The Nehor said:

As someone who has had erotic dreams about demons I hope you are right.

You need to get married. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I am honestly reading through studies and looking for the truth but because I am untrained and uneducated, I find it all hard to sift through. So, could the experts with knowledge debunk this article from the Yale epidemiologist and this thread with country statistics. It's hard to find the hard numbers to compare from original sources that are found in this thread. Is the data correct? Are they using statistics correctly? (Statistics are easily manipulated to say what you want them to.)

https://twitter.com/cryptonephilim/status/1288402859357171713?s=20

https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535

All of these studies have limitations and are considered preliminary studies with "further trials needed" to duplicate results and with controlled double blind studies and large sample size.  While there is some evidence to give hope that it works, Dr. Risch neglects to consider or discuss the dozens and dozens of studies that could not duplicate those results.   Many of these studies which saw favorable results had HUGE limitations.  For example, in this recent large retrospective study, there was a major flaw and is unreliable on its own:

Quote

The hydroxychloroquine group had the lowest death rate (13.5%) while those who did not get either medication had the highest death rate (26.4%).

Seems VERY promising, right?  Well...lets read further past the headline:

Quote

A large flaw in this study is that 77% of patients who got hydroxychloroquine also got a steroid, while only 37% of those who didn’t get hydroxychloroquine got a steroid.

Steroids have been shown to reduce mortality rate in studies.  How then can anyone claim that it was Chloroquine that caused the reduced death rate?  It's stuff like that that you have to consider.

This is a great article which discusses some of the studies with positive results and also the dozens of studies with negative results (that Dr. Risch seems to ignore). 

https://www.goodrx.com/blog/coronavirus-medicine-chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine-as-covid19-treatment/

Both the NIH and the WHO, earlier this month, have discontinued large-scale controlled studies because trials showed little to no efficacy:

Quote

WHO today accepted the recommendation from the Solidarity Trial’s International Steering Committee to discontinue the trial’s hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir arms. The Solidarity Trial was established by WHO to find an effective COVID-19 treatment for hospitalized patients.

The International Steering Committee formulated the recommendation in light of the evidence for hydroxychloroquine vs standard-of-care and for lopinavir/ritonavir vs standard-of-care from the Solidarity trial interim results, and from a review of the evidence from all trials presented at the 1-2 July WHO Summit on COVID-19 research and innovation. 

These interim trial results show that hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir produce little or no reduction in the mortality of hospitalized COVID-19 patients when compared to standard of care. Solidarity trial investigators will interrupt the trials with immediate effect. 

https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/04-07-2020-who-discontinues-hydroxychloroquine-and-lopinavir-ritonavir-treatment-arms-for-covid-19

And of course from the FDA:

Quote

Based on ongoing analysis and emerging scientific data, FDA has revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19 in certain hospitalized patients when a clinical trial is unavailable or participation is not feasible. We made this determination based on recent results from a large, randomized clinical trial in hospitalized patients that found these medicines showed no benefit for decreasing the likelihood of death or speeding recovery. This outcome was consistent with other new data, including those showing the suggested dosing for these medicines are unlikely to kill or inhibit the virus that causes COVID-19. As a result, we determined that the legal criteria for the EUA are no longer met. Please refer to the Revocation of the EUA Letter and FAQs on the Revocation of the EUA for Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate and Chloroquine Phosphate for more information

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or

Where is the solid evidence, the medical consensus, and clear practice guidelines for ethical off-label use of a medicine?  I can't find it anywhere without using tunnel vision to focus on one subset of trials and ignoring their limitations. 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, bsjkki said:

And to add to the confusion. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-netherlands-idUSKCN24U2UJ

“Because from a medical perspective there is no proven effectiveness of masks, the Cabinet has decided that there will be no national obligation for wearing non-medical masks” Van Ark said.

What confusion?  Who is confused?  Can you point me to any organization in the public health sector in the WORLD that doesn't believe that masks work?  Can you point to one political party?  Good luck finding any politician even.  Any major religious organizations?  Any country in the world discouraging masks?     

When people stop forwarding quotes from Facebook which are taken entirely out of context, maybe the needless "confusion" will finally abate once and for all.  Let's let the article speak for itself:

Quote

 

RIVM chief Jaap van Dissel said that the organization was aware of studies that show masks help slow the spread of disease but it was not convinced they will help during the current coronavirus outbreak in the Netherlands.

He argued wearing masks incorrectly, together with worse adherence to social distancing rules, could increase the risk of transmitting the disease.

“So we think that if you’re going to use masks (in a public setting) ... then you must give good training for it,” he said.

Mask are currently required only on public transportation in the Netherlands and in airports.

 

In other words, they DO believe that masks work.  For some reason, they think their own people are too stupid to learn what any 3 1/2 year old (my child) can learn to do in 5 minutes - properly wear a mask.  For some reason (without providing any evidence) they also believe that wearing a mask might encourage people to disregard social distancing rules.  That is nuts!  I have observed the complete opposite.  It is those who wear masks that also social distance, it is those who do not wear masks that don't social distance.  

Why would masks be required on public transit and airports if they didn't think they worked.  Apparently people can properly wear masks in those place but nowhere else? 

Are we still talking about masks?  Seriously?

Look what mask mandates have done to numbers in Salt Lake County.  Look at our numbers state wide after the Area Presidency sent out their letter.  There is direct correlation. 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, pogi said:

What confusion?  Who is confused?  Can you point me to any organization in the public health sector in the WORLD that doesn't believe that masks work?  Can you point to one political party?  Good luck finding any politician even.  Any major religious organizations?  Any country in the world discouraging masks?     

When people stop forwarding quotes from Facebook which are taken entirely out of context, maybe the needless "confusion" will finally abate once and for all.  Let's let the article speak for itself:

In other words, they DO believe that masks work.  For some reason, they think their own people are too stupid to learn what any 3 1/2 year old (my child) can learn to do in 5 minutes - properly wear a mask.  For some reason (without providing any evidence) they also believe that wearing a mask might encourage people to disregard social distancing rules.  That is nuts!  I have observed the complete opposite.  It is those who wear masks that also social distance, it is those who do not wear masks that don't social distance.  

Why would masks be required on public transit and airports if they didn't think they worked.  Apparently people can properly wear masks in those place but nowhere else? 

Are we still talking about masks?  Seriously?

Look what mask mandates have done to numbers in Salt Lake County.  Look at our numbers state wide after the Area Presidency sent out their letter.  There is direct correlation. 

You always say what I want but know I can't do as good a job! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

Fauci yesterday and Birx today encouraging face shields and goggles. You can decorate them too. https://twitter.com/theconservador/status/1288823368985313280?s=20

 

Could they be any more disrespectful to their invited guest who took time out of her busy day to be on their show, and who is simply doing her best to protect the American people?  Completely disgraceful treatment of their guest and public servant!

I agree that getting the public to sign-on to eye protection or face shields after all of this is a hard sell, but she is completely right - If people were willing to work it (they wont be), it would work.  It is a simple and cost effective solution with no side effects, but of course Americans would rather pop a pill that is potentially deadly with no proven efficacy as a prophylaxis.  That is the American way right? - pop a pill, pop open a soda, and watch the fat burn away.  That is the public we are up against.  We are our worst enemies.

We have the power, as the hosts of this virus, to bring this virus to its knees and save our economy, but instead we fly to pieces when public health professionals suggest that it would be a good idea to wear a mask and eye protection. I am so fed up with people. 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

It is things like this that also lead to 'confusion.' I don't quite understand why the rules of behavior are so inconsistently encouraged. I thought packed churches were not 'okay.' Why is it okay for certain people to have large funerals and others cannot.

They also had watch parties in other cities with crowds.

Mask wearing crowds but still crowds. The hypocritical encouragement of protests and packed funerals also leads to confused messaging. Are you outraged about that too? I hope so!

Took out the links...404 code.
Edited by bsjkki
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

It is things like this that also lead to 'confusion.' I don't quite understand why the rules of behavior are so inconsistently encouraged. I thought packed churches were not 'okay.' Why is it okay for certain people to have large funerals and others cannot.

They also had watch parties in other cities with crowds.

Mask wearing crowds but still crowds. The hypocritical encouragement of protests and packed funerals also leads to confused messaging. Are you outraged about that too? I hope so!

Took out the links...404 code.

I don't know what you are referring to specifically, but it seems you are now talking about politicians and not public health officers/agencies.  The best way to avoid this kind of confusion is to just plug your ears when they talk.  Listen to the public health experts leading our country.  Unfortunately, our own President won't even listen to them or follow the guidelines of his own establishment, how can we expect other politicians to take any of it seriously when their leader is so inconsistent?  The hypocrisy and inconsistencies abound throughout politics, and yes, it outrages me too.    

Edited by pogi
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't know what you are referring to specifically, but it seems you are now talking about politicians and not public health officers/agencies.  The best way to avoid this kind of confusion is to just plug your ears when they talk.  Listen to the public health experts leading our country.  Unfortunately, our own President won't even listen to them or f

ollow the guidelines of his own establishment, how can we expect other politicians to take any of it seriously when their leader is so inconsistent?  The hypocrisy and inconsistencies abound throughout politics, and yes, it outrages me too.    

I thought you would agree.

Sadly, public health officials don’t. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-letter-protests-coronavirus-trnd/index.html?espv=1

Edited by bsjkki

Share this post


Link to post

To hell with it!  We're all going to die of something anyway, so it really doesn't matter what it is, does it?! <_< :rolleyes:

(Sorry! :(  Just feelin' grouchy about the overall state of affairs in the world and had to get it out! :huh:)

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled, on-topic, pessimistic programming! :unknw:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

To hell with it!  We're all going to die of something anyway, so it really doesn't matter what it is, does it?! <_< :rolleyes:

(Sorry! :(  Just feelin' grouchy about the overall state of affairs in the world and had to get it out! :huh:)

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled, on-topic, pessimistic programming! :unknw:

It is a tempting reaction but there are much less horrible ways to die.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Luckily these don't represent public health in general?  What agency backs this letter?  What top officials signed it?

First of all, the letter is deceiving.  How many public health experts actually signed the letter?  It says that it was also signed by "community stake holders".  What the heck does that mean?  For all we know, it could have been mostly signed by random voters (community stake holders) with only a few actual public health workers. 

I have no doubt that some health experts signed the letter.  It would be ridiculous to think that all public health experts are agreed on the topic of protests.  We have seen that they are not.  Consensus matters.  What are the top officials saying about the protests?  

Edited by pogi

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't know what you are referring to specifically, but it seems you are now talking about politicians and not public health officers/agencies.  The best way to avoid this kind of confusion is to just plug your ears when they talk.  Listen to the public health experts leading our country.  Unfortunately, our own President won't even listen to them or follow the guidelines of his own establishment, how can we expect other politicians to take any of it seriously when their leader is so inconsistent?  The hypocrisy and inconsistencies abound throughout politics, and yes, it outrages me too.    

I'll bet Herman wishes he'd wore a mask! https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2020-07-30/herman-cain-former-republican-presidential-candidate-dies-after-covid-19-diagnosis

Image may contain: 1 person, text that says 'Herman Cain @THEHermanCain Masks will not be mandatory for the event, which will be attended by President Trump. PEOPLE ARE FED UP!'

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

To hell with it!  We're all going to die of something anyway, so it really doesn't matter what it is, does it?! <_< :rolleyes:

We will all eventually die of the exact same thing actually - oxygen deprivation.  What matters more to me is not how, but when that will happen.  I plan to suck as much juice out of this life as I possibly can before I die. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, pogi said:

Could they be any more disrespectful to their invited guest who took time out of her busy day to be on their show, and who is simply doing her best to protect the American people?  Completely disgraceful treatment of their guest and public servant!

I agree that getting the public to sign-on to eye protection or face shields after all of this is a hard sell, but she is completely right - If people were willing to work it (they wont be), it would work.  It is a simple and cost effective solution with no side effects, but of course Americans would rather pop a pill that is potentially deadly with no proven efficacy as a prophylaxis.  That is the American way right? - pop a pill, pop open a soda, and watch the fat burn away.  That is the public we are up against.  We are our worst enemies.

We have the power, as the hosts of this virus, to bring this virus to its knees and save our economy, but instead we fly to pieces when public health professionals suggest that it would be a good idea to wear a mask and eye protection. I am so fed up with people. 

Some are trying to reignite the Spirit of the Greatest Generation:

covid-propaganda-edited.jpg?itok=i2dzUNR

 

Rosie the Riveter rides again:

wecandoit_032020_final-1020x761.png
5e89d7f1ec626f3bf62daae9_MAIN.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, pogi said:

Are you seriously going to pretend like this tiny fraction represents public health in general?  What agency backs this letter?  What top officials signed it?

Old news sister.  

First of all, the letter is deceiving.  How many public health experts actually signed the letter?  It says that it was also signed by "community stake holders".  What the heck does that mean?  For all we know, it could have been mostly signed by random voters (community stake holders) with only a few actual public health workers. 

I have no doubt that some health experts signed the letter.  It would be ridiculous to think that all public health experts are agreed on the topic of protests.  We have seen that they are not.  Consensus matters.  What are the top officials saying about the protests?  

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/us/Epidemiologists-coronavirus-protests-quarantine.html

Can you point me to some vocal opposition to the protests by a health expert? One that got news coverage from the big news sources?

The CDC was concerned but the bigger headlines were protests were more important. A simple google search makes it clear.  https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/06/cdc-warns-protests-and-covid-19-spread

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/07/cdc-scientists-protest-racism-agency

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-health-protests-301534

"Still, the divergence in their own reactions left some of the country’s prominent epidemiologists wrestling with deeper questions of morality, responsibility and risk.

Catherine Troisi, an infectious-disease epidemiologist at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, studies Covid-19. When, wearing a mask and standing at the edge of a great swell of people, she attended a recent protest in Houston supporting Mr. Floyd, a sense of contradiction tugged at her."...

“I certainly condemned the anti-lockdown protests at the time, and I’m not condemning the protests now, and I struggle with that,” Dr. Troisi said. “I have a hard time articulating why that is OK.”

'“Instinctively, many of us in public health feel a strong desire to act against accumulated generations of racial injustice,” Dr. Lurie said. “But we have to be honest: A few weeks before, we were criticizing protesters for arguing to open up the economy and saying that was dangerous behavior.

“I am still grappling with that.”

To which Ashish Jha, dean of Brown University’s School of Public Health, added: “Do I worry that mass protests will fuel more cases? Yes, I do. But a dam broke, and there’s no stopping that.”

https://www.denverpost.com/2020/06/15/coronavirus-protests-health-racism/

https://slate.com/technology/2020/06/public-health-advice-protest-safety-political.html

"You know what? Public health experts are letting their “politics” sway health care recommendations. "

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...