Covid III: Delta Force

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, blarsen said:

Not too interested in your polio subject.  Sorry.

In light of the fact that Covid in America has proven more deadly than poliovirus before vaccines, I can certainly understand why!

Edited February 1, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[blarsen]

42 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

There is quite a Wiki write up on your doctor.

McCullough doesn't really inspire a lot of confidence when he gets slammed by the truth like that.

Not too interested in ad hominem attacks on the man, especially from Wikipedia.  See my comments on that subject, if you are interested.  What you should do as a truth seeker is to find out why he took the  stance he did toward the NIH and the FDA.  Calling it "misinformation" says nothing.  It's name calling. 

[blarsen]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

In light of the fact that Covid in America has proven more deadly than poliovirus before vaccines, I can certainly understand why!

And how interested are you in the efficacy of sequenced multi-drug therapies for COVID-19?  Not much, apparently.  But I certainly don't understand why!  It would be a very logical subject to consider, especially in view of how deadly you regard COVID-19 to be.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, blarsen said:

It would be a very logical subject to consider, especially in view of how deadly you regard COVID-19 to be.

This is not about my 'regard'; I provided the figures. Covid has killed a higher percentage of people in America than poliovirus ever killed and/or left with paralysis or muscle weakness.

At this point, one out of every 364 Americans has died from Covid over the past two years. That's just crazy. American deaths from Covid are currently 1.47 times greater than American combat deaths from World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War added together.

In Mississippi, the most impacted state, one out of every 272 people has died. And in heavily Latter-day Saint Arizona, it has been one out of every 278 people.

Quote

And how interested are you in the efficacy of sequenced multi-drug therapies for COVID-19?

I'm interested in the efficacy of anything that is genuinely efficacious. We haven't nearly eradicated poliovirus by waiting till people get sick and then trying to save them from death or serious illness. Prevention of death and serious illness is always better.

I live in a jurisdiction where currently 98.6 per cent of all people age 12+ have received at least two doses of Covid vaccine, with almost 50 per cent of us (myself included) having had a third dose (booster). I just crunched the numbers. Our case fatality rate is currently sitting at 60.3 people per 1,000,000 population.

The case fatality rate in America is currently 2,724 people per 1,000,000 population. That means that Covid has, so far, killed Americans at a rate 45 times greater than it has killed us.

As the prophets have repeatedly taught us across so many areas of life, prevention is far, far superior to later attempts at a cure.

Edited February 1, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, blarsen said:

No.  The progress would be your evolving from the belief that COVID-19 was a deadly killer disease to one “where most people get better without medical intervention”.  Now, if you believed that from the start, it wouldn’t apply to you.

 

You ignored my “long-term testing” qualifier for the mRNA vaccines.

 

Actually, there is “mounting evidence that the spike protein isn’t as benign as its developers would have hoped”.  Hardly smoke and mirrors, or “piles of ex feces”, as you so emotionally put it.

 

Straw man inference refers to your not bringing up and refuting any of what I mentioned, but something that can be easily ridiculed.  A deflection from any points I was making.

 

This may blow your mind but even if most people get better without medical intervention a disease can still be deadly. This includes 90% plus of all deadly diseases ever. If there were diseases that had much higher death rates the population of the world would routinely lose over half its population every time a new disease showed up but such incidents are relatively rare. My views have not changed at all. Your straw man of what I used to believe is false because you decided that “deadly” meant something other than what it does. I am not responsible for your ignorance.

Long term testing is mostly a conspiracy myth. Ever since vaccines were developed no vaccine has been found to have long-term negative health effects that show up beyond six to eight weeks out and we have tested mRNA vaccines before the Covid vaccine and they do not have those either. The vaccine also quickly breaks down and is flushed out so the possibility of long-term effects are all but non-existent. The idea that there is a normal extensive long-term study that takes 5-10 years or whatever to see if everyone is going to drop dead in a decade is a myth created by conspiracy nuts.

Then present scientific evidence of how the spike protein is dangerous.

You didn’t make any coherent points. 

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, blarsen said:

My hope of being surprised by your input is being dashed.  Wikipedia, as a reliable source on controversial  topics and people?  Dream on. 

Now I like Wikipedia on straight forward, non-controversial topics, especially where something technical or scientific or even philosophical and biographical is being described and explained.  I've even contributed money to them 2-3 times.  Outside of this type of input, however, they too often and egregiously drop the ball.  I've experienced this again and again.  But you're welcome to it.

My personal experience is having collected about 15 published papers describing the good effects of ivermectin in combating the COVID-19 infection, before I ever heard McCullough's claim .  So when I heard McCullough state that there were about 60 such papers, to include 30 using random trials, he was very believable.  This has been reinforced by seeing him back up everything he says using scientific papers and studies.

He has not backed up everything he says. He throws out papers of small studies where some drugs showed efficacy and ignores more comprehensive studies. The small studies can show Ivermectin or whatever work but with a small sample size it can easily be random luck. These small studies are done to see if there might be merit in doing larger studies. These studies were done and the treatment was found to have no statistically significant benefit. Pointing out the old small studies that show marginal benefits is disingenuous and deceptive when the larger studies have been done and show no benefit and even many of the smaller studies show no benefit. There is a weird attachment to this drug because a cult leader in the US praised it publicly and the cultists want to believe he was right so they are throwing themselves on their sword for it. In some cases literally dying for that belief.

The piss therapy I mocked could easily have small studies showing it worked if it were studied. It wouldn’t mean that it works. McCullough is grifting this cure because it gets him gain and glory. It is a kind of priestcraft.

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, blarsen said:

Not too interested in ad hominem attacks on the man, especially from Wikipedia.  See my comments on that subject, if you are interested.  What you should do as a truth seeker is to find out why he took the  stance he did toward the NIH and the FDA.  Calling it "misinformation" says nothing.  It's name calling. 

Saying someone is a proven liar is not an ad hominem. Someone’s credibility is always important.

10 hours ago, blarsen said:

And how interested are you in the efficacy of sequenced multi-drug therapies for COVID-19?  Not much, apparently.  But I certainly don't understand why!  It would be a very logical subject to consider, especially in view of how deadly you regard COVID-19 to be.

Very. Believing there are great drug therapies out there because propaganda outlets say there are there without any evidence does not make it true. The idea that this area is being ignored and is not being studied is a myth. The reason that hundreds of medical organizations and government health agencies across the world are endorsing vaccines is because they are proven to work. The drug therapies you are yammering about have not been shown to work. This is the key difference.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Saying someone is a proven liar is not an ad hominem.

Actually, I think it is the very definition of ad hominem.  Arguing that an idea is wrong based on who presents it, rather than what  is presented.

 

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Actually, I think it is the very definition of ad hominem.  Arguing that an idea is wrong based on who presents it, rather than what  is presented.

 

Saying someone is a proven liar isn't ad hominem. If it actually is proven then stating so is just stating a fact. 

But saying that something that a person said is wrong because they are a proven liar, is ad hominem.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Danzo said:

Actually, I think it is the very definition of ad hominem.  Arguing that an idea is wrong based on who presents it, rather than what  is presented.

 

It is strictly ad hominem but it is not part of the ad hominem fallacy which is what I assume I am being accused of using. I have my doubts my honorable opponent was congratulating me on using a valid ad hominem argument.

From Wikipedia:

“Valid ad hominem arguments occur in informal logic, where the person making the argument relies on arguments from authority such as testimony, expertise, or on a selective presentation of information supporting the position they are advocating. In this case, counter-arguments may be made that the target is dishonest, lacks the claimed expertise, or has a conflict of interest.”

His argument was based on ‘this guy supports me’ so ‘this guy is dishonest’ is a valid rebuttal. You can’t base your argument on believing someone and cry fallacy when the counter argument is that that person cannot be trusted. In a strict discussion discussing actual data and conclusions claiming your opponent lies a lot is not enough to disprove what they say but in that situation they are presumably discussing the underlying science and both parties would understand it enough to debate beyond using the latest from the Epoch Times or what Joe Bob said on Facebook or what pseudoscience McCullough is peddling on Joe Rogan’s podcast.

Edited February 1, 2022 by The Nehor

[longview]

On 1/31/2022 at 10:23 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

In light of the fact that Covid in America has proven more deadly than poliovirus before vaccines, I can certainly understand why!

Especially among the nursing home population.  The elderly died in far greater numbers because they were not given appropriate protocols.  Here is a link to an exhaustive list of actual observations and studies that show the urgent need for real science to be applied - - - https://www.justfacts.com/news_face_masks_deadly_falsehoods

As an example, here are 3 important elements to understand - - -

*note that one micron is .001 of a millimeter and the diameter of Covid virus is 100 nanometers (nm is .001 micron).  Thus the respiratory particles do not even have to be coughed out but simply exhaled in normal breathing and easily shuttled out the sides of the mask or even through the mask!

Two indisputable concerns (from the link):

• masks of all types, and especially N95s, cause headaches, difficulty breathing, increased cardio-pulmonary stress during exercise, marked discomfort, and weakened social bonds.
• the average CO2 concentrations inhaled by people wearing masks are far above what many governments permit for indoor settings, and this may impair certain high-level brain functions like initiative, strategic thinking, and complex decision-making.

Edited February 2, 2022 by longview

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, longview said:

the average CO2 concentrations inhaled by people wearing masks are far above what many governments permit for indoor settings, and this may impair certain high-level brain functions like initiative, strategic thinking, and complex decision-making.

Which is why surgeons and nurses are known to have extensive brain damage.

[Calm]

Quote

The number of human subjects involved in the present study was still quite small and the data might not be representative of larger populations. 

14 subjects

Quote

No subjects reported symptoms of hypercapnia…Clearly, our findings are of uncertain practical significance and further trials would be required employing cognitive and psychomotor measurements and arterial blood gas analysis.

4 subjects

Quote

A lab study published in 2021 by the journal Aerosol and Air Quality Researchmeasured CO2 levels in the breathing zones of a surgical mask and a 3-layer cloth mask while a 50-year-old male wore them

1 subject

No time to look at rest for now

[Tacenda]

52 minutes ago, longview said:

Especially among the nursing home population.  The elderly died in far greater numbers because they were not given appropriate protocols.  Here is a link to an exhaustive list of actual observations and studies that show the urgent need for real science to be applied - - - https://www.justfacts.com/news_face_masks_deadly_falsehoods

As an example, here are 3 important elements to understand - - -

*note that one micron is .001 of a millimeter and the diameter of Covid virus is 100 nanometers (nm is .001 micron).  Thus the respiratory particles do not even have to be coughed out but simply exhaled in normal breathing and easily shuttled out the sides of the mask or even through the mask!

Two indisputable concerns (from the link):

• masks of all types, and especially N95s, cause headaches, difficulty breathing, increased cardio-pulmonary stress during exercise, marked discomfort, and weakened social bonds.
• the average CO2 concentrations inhaled by people wearing masks are far above what many governments permit for indoor settings, and this may impair certain high-level brain functions like initiative, strategic thinking, and complex decision-making.

While reading your link thoroughly, it made me think of this. 

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/01/12/375663920/the-doctor-who-championed-hand-washing-and-saved-women-s-lives

Your article trying to persuade others that masks don't work is like the medical personnel not taking the doctor in this article's advice and him even getting fired for trying to convince them it would save lives. That's how I think masks help with covid. I work in the schools and when the schools mandated masks last year there weren't many sick with covid, contrast to this year there's an epidemic of teachers and students getting sick with covid that our governor (Utah) has to make it so federal employees are allowed to sub in the classrooms. 

So please leave this garbage off this thread. 

 

Edited February 2, 2022 by Tacenda

[longview]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

Which is why surgeons and nurses are known to have extensive brain damage.

Maybe.  But it can be scary how they are not operating at the most optimal level while performing surgical tasks.  

[longview]

50 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

While reading your link thoroughly, it made me think of this. 

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/01/12/375663920/the-doctor-who-championed-hand-washing-and-saved-women-s-lives

Thank you for this link.  Amazing story.  Even then this hero did not have the knowledge concerning germ theory but his investigations did lead to the helpful protocol for washing hands and sanitizing.  Which today is firmly established and validated for preventing infections for both the medical worker and patients.

50 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Your article trying to persuade others that masks don't work is like the medical personnel not taking the doctor in this article's advice and him even getting fired for trying to convince them it would save lives. That's how I think masks help with covid.

I am not "trying to persuade" against the use of the masks.  It is still useful for preventing coughing spittles from flying around.  It is apparent you do not understand the illustration in my post showing the size of [infected respiratory particles (one micron)] as compared with the size of the openings within various kinds of masks.  Sneezings particulates and coughing spittles definitely will be impeded by masks.  Did you even bother to notice the notes just below the illustration that explained the different microscopic units used in the illustration?

50 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I work in the schools and when the schools mandated masks last year there weren't many sick with covid, contrast to this year there's an epidemic of teachers and students getting sick with covid that our governor (Utah) has to make it so federal employees are allowed to sub in the classrooms. 

I won't argue on the deluge of reporting that has been put out in the two years of the pandemic.  I agree there is a great deal of disinformation disseminated all around.

50 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

So please leave this garbage off this thread. 

Wow!  You really know how to hurt a guy's feeling.  So it is apparent you did not even go to the link and at least skim the contents.  Maybe you should try to find something in it that you would consider to be "unscientific" ?  I would be more than happy to have that discussion with you.  Luv ya!

Edited February 2, 2022 by longview

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Thank you for this link.  Amazing story.  Even then this hero did not have the knowledge concerning germ theory but his investigations did lead to the helpful protocol for washing hands and sanitizing.  Which today is firmly established and validated for preventing infections for both the medical worker and patients.

I am not "trying to persuade" against the use of the masks.  It is still useful for preventing coughing spittles from flying around.  It is apparent you do not understand the illustration in my post showing the size of [infected respiratory particles (one micron)] as compared with the size of the openings within various kinds of masks.  Sneezings particulates and coughing spittles definitely will be impeded by masks.  Did you even bother to notice the notes just below the illustration that explained the different microscopic units used in the illustration?

I won't argue on the deluge of reporting that has been put out in the two years of the pandemic.  I agree there is a great deal of disinformation disseminated all around.

Wow!  You really know how to hurt a guy's feeling.  So it is apparent you did not even go to the link and at least skim the contents.  Maybe you should try to find something in it that you would consider to be "unscientific" ?  I would be more than happy to have that discussion with you.  Luv ya!

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/10/can-masks-make-you-sicker/616641/

https://www.kxan.com/news/coronavirus/do-face-masks-work-here-are-49-scientific-studies-that-explain-why-they-do/

You and I can counteract with links all day long, but I've lived the experiment. 

Below is the difference from 2020 and 2021 to 2022. 

https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP and CHA - Children and COVID-19 State Data Report 1.27.22 FINAL.pdf

Edited February 2, 2022 by Tacenda

[Calm]

Omicron and Delta make a difference being much more infectious.  It is not just mask or no mask.  I am not sure how you could isolate the variables in a school.

Edited February 2, 2022 by Calm

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, longview said:

I am not "trying to persuade" against the use of the masks.  It is still useful for preventing coughing spittles from flying around.  It is apparent you do not understand the illustration in my post showing the size of [infected respiratory particles (one micron)] as compared with the size of the openings within various kinds of masks.  Sneezings particulates and coughing spittles definitely will be impeded by masks.  Did you even bother to notice the notes just below the illustration that explained the different microscopic units used in the illustration?

Yes, the virus is quite capable of passing through the masks as a single particle. Some (I'll venture to guess most by a large amount*) of the virus will be attached to/inside/with a particle of spittle - the very ones that are blocked or have their aerosolization reduced.

* Perhaps somebody can find some scientific data to back this opinion (e.g. like unto https://www.nature.com/articles/s41368-020-0080-z)

[Tacenda]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

Omicron and Delta make a difference being much more infectious.  It is not just mask or no mask.  I am not sure how you could isolate the variables in a school.

Well, it's clear that the reason the numbers are high is the no masks needed philosophy. And are needed more now than ever. I've sub'd a lot in the last while, yesterday a girl in my class said her sister is home sick with covid, and she was one of only two in the whole class with the mask on. I need to make clear that I understand if a student cannot wear one because of either emotional, or poor lung capacity or ?

Kids want to stay in school, especially those in grades that have momentous occasions such as in high school. 

 https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/childrens-health/back-to-school-during-delta-surge-8-things-parents-should-know

Edited February 2, 2022 by Tacenda

[longview]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

You and I can counteract with links all day long, but I've lived the experiment. 

I am not interested in "counteractions".  Just simply for you to give JustFacts a fair examination.  Nobody is twisting your arm.

[Snodgrassian]

On 1/30/2022 at 7:11 PM, longview said:

More positive news on protocols:  https://www.theepochtimes.com/dr-pierre-kory-the-war-on-hydroxychloroquine-ivermectin-and-other-cheap-drugs-to-treat-covid-19_4245042.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-01-30-2&utm_medium=email&est=wGSg%2B0%2FL6Df%2FKsy1nH1u2P6bLmz%2B%2FVtDPj

This is 52 minutes long so you may want to just watch the span starting at 30 mins until 40 mins.

Is The Epoch Times a good source of information on this topic? Asking for a friend.

[longview]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Yes, the virus is quite capable of passing through the masks as a single particle. Some (I'll venture to guess most by a large amount*) of the virus will be attached to/inside/with a particle of spittle - the very ones that are blocked or have their aerosolization reduced.

* Perhaps somebody can find some scientific data to back this opinion (e.g. like unto https://www.nature.com/articles/s41368-020-0080-z)

In my post with the illustration, there is a major difference between normal breathing, sneezing, and coughing spittles.  I hope you took notice of the units and measurements.  There is a big difference spittle and normal breathing which is [infected respiratory particles (one micron)].  Whereas spittle are much larger, probably one millimeter or larger.  Sneezing are somewhere in between normal breathing and spittles.

It stands to reason that the vast majority of the virus will pass through normal breathing unimpeded by masks.  Spittle are not particles but gobs of varying sizes.  Sneezing is not as bad but has greater moisture content.

[longview]

7 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

Is The Epoch Times a good source of information on this topic? Asking for a friend.

Most definitely yes.  It was founded by refugees fleeing from Communist China oppression and threats.  It has  a very large readership numbering in the tens of millions and is published worldwide.  Still growing by leaps and bounds.  I am a subscriber.

[Nofear]

25 minutes ago, longview said:

In my post with the illustration, there is a major difference between normal breathing, sneezing, and coughing spittles.  I hope you took notice of the units and measurements.  There is a big difference spittle and normal breathing which is [infected respiratory particles (one micron)].  Whereas spittle are much larger, probably one millimeter or larger.  Sneezing are somewhere in between normal breathing and spittles.

It stands to reason that the vast majority of the virus will pass through normal breathing unimpeded by masks.  Spittle are not particles but gobs of varying sizes.  Sneezing is not as bad but has greater moisture content.

Your post suggests to some basic misunderstandings. But, I confess I'm not really motivated to take the time to clear up your errors.