COVID-19 ... how we cope :)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post
    Who does research on this forum? Sid, are you? I think many end with experts' opinions found elsewhere.

    Comment


    • Of the major countries Czechia is the most saturated with over 15% and not slowing down. Will it reach 20%? - 25%? What is the saturation limit?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Hans Jung View Post
        Of the major countries Czechia is the most saturated with over 15% and not slowing down. Will it reach 20%? - 25%? What is the saturation limit?
        Hans, I don't know what you mean by saturation, but given that their testing rate is quite high, the real number of symptomatic & asymptomatic infections total (tested plus untested) is unlikely to be very high, about 30%, I would guess...And as vaccinated persons are also getting infected, don't you think eventually all countries will have 80%+ total infections?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post
          Sid,
          The right hand side mentality is what led to a proliferation of religions in our world... but now many amongst the 'common' men & women are moving to the left hand side and atheism is becoming popular...

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Peter McKillop View Post

            Trying to get more information about who Baruch Vainshelboim is and up pops this:

            https://www.amgenbiotechexperience.c...rily-believing

            Too many of the links you post come with this sort of credibility-damaging baggage. Now, if I choose to read your Baruch V. article, I also have to find out who Amgen is so that I can assess their credibility - all of which is difficult online. Instead I choose to do something else with my time.

            Hi Peter, I am pasting here some information from factcheck.org (credited to Angelo Fichera):

            Viral headlines in recent days have wrongly purported that a “Stanford Study” proved that masks are ineffective and dangerous. In reality, the paper in question was one author’s hypothesis and didn’t come from anyone currently affiliated with the university.

            “Stanford Study Results: Facemasks are Ineffective to Block Transmission of COVID-19 and Actually Can Cause Health Deterioration and Premature Death,” reads an April 19 headline from the Gateway Pundit, a conservative website known for spreading misinformation. The story — shared on Facebook nearly 28,000 times, according to CrowdTangle analytics data — cites another website, NOQ report, whose story was published two days earlier.

            The American Conservative Movement website similarly ran the headline, “Stanford study quietly published at NIH.gov proves face masks are absolutely worthless against Covid.” It was shared on Facebook more than 10,000 times.

            The paper being referenced was not an original “study,” but one person’s hypothesis — or proposed explanation — based on a review of some previous literature. It was first published online in November by the journal Medical Hypotheses, which describes itself as “a forum for ideas in medicine and related biomedical sciences.” While the paper appears on PubMed Central — an archive of scientific literature run by the National Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine — that does not indicate NIH endorses or concurs with the content, as some of the viral stories wrongly suggest.

            The paper’s author, Baruch Vainshelboim, is listed as being affiliated with the “Cardiology Division, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System/Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States.”

            But Julie Greicius, a spokesperson for Stanford Health Care and the university’s School of Medicine, told us in an email that “[t]he author’s affiliation is inaccurately attributed to Stanford, and we have requested a correction” from the author and the journal.

            “The author, Baruch Vainshelboim, had no affiliation with the VA Palo Alto Health System or Stanford at the time of publication and has not had any affiliation since 2016, when his one-year term as a visiting scholar on matters unrelated to this paper ended,” she said in an email. She also noted that “Stanford Medicine strongly supports the use of face masks to control the spread of COVID-19.”

            A spokesperson for VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Michael Hill-Jackson, also told us in an email that “Baruch Vainshelboim does not work for the VA and is incorrectly affiliated on this website.” He said Vainshelboim “served as a postdoc assistant under one of our researchers from 2015-2016, however, he was never officially employed by VA and his time in this role is completely unrelated to this paper.”

            So, no, the paper is not a study from Stanford, as the headlines claim. It’s unclear where Vainshelboim currently works or why the paper featured the incorrect affiliation. We sent him several questions but haven’t heard back.

            We reached out to the editor of Medical Hypotheses, Mehar Manku, about Vainshelboim’s paper and he said in an email that the journal was aware of “issues related to the publication in question” and that “[a]ctions are in progress.”

            In the paper, Vainshelboim lays out a hypothesis against the utility of masks and concludes that they are “ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such [as] SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19.” It claims at one point, “Due to the difference in sizes between SARS-CoV-2 diameter and facemasks thread diameter (the virus is 1000 times smaller), SARS-CoV-2 can easily pass through any facemask.”

            J. Alex Huffman, an aerosol scientist at the University of Denver, told us in a phone interview that the paper betrayed a fundamental lack of understanding of respiratory aerosols.

            “Viruses don’t come out of your mouth as naked viruses,” he said. “They come out in liquid drops that are full of mostly water but also some proteins and salts” — and, if someone is sick, virus.

            Huffman further said in an email that “there is a wide distribution of particle sizes emitted when people breathe, speak, sing, or cough, but the range is anywhere from tens of nanometers to hundreds of microns. Most of these, even after evaporation, are easily removed by good masks.”

            Indeed, lab studies have shown masks can partially block exhaled respiratory droplets, which are thought to be the primary way the virus spreads. Such studies have limitations, but they continue to suggest that masks — especially ones that are multi-layered and fit well — can play a role in stopping the spread of COVID-19.

            For example, one study by scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health tested a variety of face coverings for their ability to prevent the outward spread of particles from a simulated cough. N95 respirators performed the best — blocking 99% of the particles — while medical masks blocked 59% and a three-ply cloth mask blocked 51%. (A face shield, on the other hand, stopped just 2%.)

            And in another experiment, researchers in Japan evaluated how well different masks on two mannequins that faced one another reduced exposure to the coronavirus. One mannequin was connected to a nebulizer, which produced a simulated cough, “mimicking a virus spreader,” and the other was connected to an artificial ventilator to simulate breathing. If both mannequins wore a cotton or surgical mask, transmission decreased by 60% to 70%.

            For more information on the research surrounding face masks, see our SciCheck story “The Evolving Science of Face Masks and COVID-19.”

            Vainshelboim’s paper also claims that masks “restrict breathing, causing hypoxemia and hypercapnia.” Hypoxemia is the term for insufficient oxygen in the blood; hypercapnia is the presence of too much carbon dioxide in the bloodstream.

            Experts have repeatedly rebuffed that claim, and we’ve previously addressed unfounded claims that masks cause unsafe oxygen levels.

            “For many years, health care providers have worn masks for extended periods of time with no adverse health reactions,” the Mayo Clinic Health System notes. “The CDC recommends wearing cloth masks while in public, and this option is very breathable. There is no risk of hypoxia, which is lower oxygen levels, in healthy adults. Carbon dioxide will freely diffuse through your mask as you breathe.”

            The American Lung Association also notes: “We wear masks all day long in the hospital. The masks are designed to be breathed through and there is no evidence that low oxygen levels occur.” (However, it recommends that people with preexisting lung disease contact a doctor before wearing an N95 respirator.)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Pargat Perrer View Post


              Hi Peter, I am pasting here some information from factcheck.org (credited to Angelo Fichera):

              Viral headlines in recent days have wrongly purported that a “Stanford Study” proved that masks are ineffective and dangerous. In reality, the paper in question was one author’s hypothesis and didn’t come from anyone currently affiliated with the university.

              “Stanford Study Results: Facemasks are Ineffective to Block Transmission of COVID-19 and Actually Can Cause Health Deterioration and Premature Death,” reads an April 19 headline from the Gateway Pundit, a conservative website known for spreading misinformation. The story — shared on Facebook nearly 28,000 times, according to CrowdTangle analytics data — cites another website, NOQ report, whose story was published two days earlier.

              The American Conservative Movement website similarly ran the headline, “Stanford study quietly published at NIH.gov proves face masks are absolutely worthless against Covid.” It was shared on Facebook more than 10,000 times.

              The paper being referenced was not an original “study,” but one person’s hypothesis — or proposed explanation — based on a review of some previous literature. It was first published online in November by the journal Medical Hypotheses, which describes itself as “a forum for ideas in medicine and related biomedical sciences.” While the paper appears on PubMed Central — an archive of scientific literature run by the National Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine — that does not indicate NIH endorses or concurs with the content, as some of the viral stories wrongly suggest.

              The paper’s author, Baruch Vainshelboim, is listed as being affiliated with the “Cardiology Division, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System/Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States.”

              But Julie Greicius, a spokesperson for Stanford Health Care and the university’s School of Medicine, told us in an email that “[t]he author’s affiliation is inaccurately attributed to Stanford, and we have requested a correction” from the author and the journal.

              “The author, Baruch Vainshelboim, had no affiliation with the VA Palo Alto Health System or Stanford at the time of publication and has not had any affiliation since 2016, when his one-year term as a visiting scholar on matters unrelated to this paper ended,” she said in an email. She also noted that “Stanford Medicine strongly supports the use of face masks to control the spread of COVID-19.”

              A spokesperson for VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Michael Hill-Jackson, also told us in an email that “Baruch Vainshelboim does not work for the VA and is incorrectly affiliated on this website.” He said Vainshelboim “served as a postdoc assistant under one of our researchers from 2015-2016, however, he was never officially employed by VA and his time in this role is completely unrelated to this paper.”

              So, no, the paper is not a study from Stanford, as the headlines claim. It’s unclear where Vainshelboim currently works or why the paper featured the incorrect affiliation. We sent him several questions but haven’t heard back.

              We reached out to the editor of Medical Hypotheses, Mehar Manku, about Vainshelboim’s paper and he said in an email that the journal was aware of “issues related to the publication in question” and that “[a]ctions are in progress.”

              In the paper, Vainshelboim lays out a hypothesis against the utility of masks and concludes that they are “ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such [as] SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19.” It claims at one point, “Due to the difference in sizes between SARS-CoV-2 diameter and facemasks thread diameter (the virus is 1000 times smaller), SARS-CoV-2 can easily pass through any facemask.”

              J. Alex Huffman, an aerosol scientist at the University of Denver, told us in a phone interview that the paper betrayed a fundamental lack of understanding of respiratory aerosols.

              “Viruses don’t come out of your mouth as naked viruses,” he said. “They come out in liquid drops that are full of mostly water but also some proteins and salts” — and, if someone is sick, virus.

              Huffman further said in an email that “there is a wide distribution of particle sizes emitted when people breathe, speak, sing, or cough, but the range is anywhere from tens of nanometers to hundreds of microns. Most of these, even after evaporation, are easily removed by good masks.”

              Indeed, lab studies have shown masks can partially block exhaled respiratory droplets, which are thought to be the primary way the virus spreads. Such studies have limitations, but they continue to suggest that masks — especially ones that are multi-layered and fit well — can play a role in stopping the spread of COVID-19.

              For example, one study by scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health tested a variety of face coverings for their ability to prevent the outward spread of particles from a simulated cough. N95 respirators performed the best — blocking 99% of the particles — while medical masks blocked 59% and a three-ply cloth mask blocked 51%. (A face shield, on the other hand, stopped just 2%.)

              And in another experiment, researchers in Japan evaluated how well different masks on two mannequins that faced one another reduced exposure to the coronavirus. One mannequin was connected to a nebulizer, which produced a simulated cough, “mimicking a virus spreader,” and the other was connected to an artificial ventilator to simulate breathing. If both mannequins wore a cotton or surgical mask, transmission decreased by 60% to 70%.

              For more information on the research surrounding face masks, see our SciCheck story “The Evolving Science of Face Masks and COVID-19.”

              Vainshelboim’s paper also claims that masks “restrict breathing, causing hypoxemia and hypercapnia.” Hypoxemia is the term for insufficient oxygen in the blood; hypercapnia is the presence of too much carbon dioxide in the bloodstream.

              Experts have repeatedly rebuffed that claim, and we’ve previously addressed unfounded claims that masks cause unsafe oxygen levels.

              “For many years, health care providers have worn masks for extended periods of time with no adverse health reactions,” the Mayo Clinic Health System notes. “The CDC recommends wearing cloth masks while in public, and this option is very breathable. There is no risk of hypoxia, which is lower oxygen levels, in healthy adults. Carbon dioxide will freely diffuse through your mask as you breathe.”

              The American Lung Association also notes: “We wear masks all day long in the hospital. The masks are designed to be breathed through and there is no evidence that low oxygen levels occur.” (However, it recommends that people with preexisting lung disease contact a doctor before wearing an N95 respirator.)
              The same genius "fact-checker" Angelo Fichera also claimed Hydroxy Chloroquine is not a cure for COVD.
              Angelo Fichera's Science Credentials-Degree in Journalism Temple University.


              https://www.factcheck.org/2020/07/in...covid-19-cure/

              Angelo Fichera Is the poster child for pseudoscience!
              What do 100s of scientists say?

              Screen Shot 2021-04-22 at 11.51.06 PM.png






              https://c19study.com

              As for the mask "fact check " article here is what actual scientists say

              https://www.aier.org/article/masking...-the-evidence/
              Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Friday, 23rd April, 2021, 12:03 AM.

              Comment


              • Canada's health minister Patty Hadju claims that peer-reviewed science supporting vitamin d supplementation as a way of preventing COVID19 is "fake news"
                https://c19vitamind.com/



                Comment


                • Originally posted by Pargat Perrer View Post


                  Hi Peter, I am pasting here some information from factcheck.org (credited to Angelo Fichera):

                  Viral headlines in recent days have wrongly purported that a “Stanford Study” proved that masks are ineffective and dangerous. In reality, the paper in question was one author’s hypothesis and didn’t come from anyone currently affiliated with the university.

                  “Stanford Study Results: Facemasks are Ineffective to Block Transmission of COVID-19 and Actually Can Cause Health Deterioration and Premature Death,” reads an April 19 headline from the Gateway Pundit, a conservative website known for spreading misinformation. The story — shared on Facebook nearly 28,000 times, according to CrowdTangle analytics data — cites another website, NOQ report, whose story was published two days earlier.

                  The American Conservative Movement website similarly ran the headline, “Stanford study quietly published at NIH.gov proves face masks are absolutely worthless against Covid.” It was shared on Facebook more than 10,000 times.

                  The paper being referenced was not an original “study,” but one person’s hypothesis — or proposed explanation — based on a review of some previous literature. It was first published online in November by the journal Medical Hypotheses, which describes itself as “a forum for ideas in medicine and related biomedical sciences.” While the paper appears on PubMed Central — an archive of scientific literature run by the National Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine — that does not indicate NIH endorses or concurs with the content, as some of the viral stories wrongly suggest.

                  The paper’s author, Baruch Vainshelboim, is listed as being affiliated with the “Cardiology Division, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System/Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States.”

                  But Julie Greicius, a spokesperson for Stanford Health Care and the university’s School of Medicine, told us in an email that “[t]he author’s affiliation is inaccurately attributed to Stanford, and we have requested a correction” from the author and the journal.

                  “The author, Baruch Vainshelboim, had no affiliation with the VA Palo Alto Health System or Stanford at the time of publication and has not had any affiliation since 2016, when his one-year term as a visiting scholar on matters unrelated to this paper ended,” she said in an email. She also noted that “Stanford Medicine strongly supports the use of face masks to control the spread of COVID-19.”

                  A spokesperson for VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Michael Hill-Jackson, also told us in an email that “Baruch Vainshelboim does not work for the VA and is incorrectly affiliated on this website.” He said Vainshelboim “served as a postdoc assistant under one of our researchers from 2015-2016, however, he was never officially employed by VA and his time in this role is completely unrelated to this paper.”

                  So, no, the paper is not a study from Stanford, as the headlines claim. It’s unclear where Vainshelboim currently works or why the paper featured the incorrect affiliation. We sent him several questions but haven’t heard back.

                  We reached out to the editor of Medical Hypotheses, Mehar Manku, about Vainshelboim’s paper and he said in an email that the journal was aware of “issues related to the publication in question” and that “[a]ctions are in progress.”

                  In the paper, Vainshelboim lays out a hypothesis against the utility of masks and concludes that they are “ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such [as] SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19.” It claims at one point, “Due to the difference in sizes between SARS-CoV-2 diameter and facemasks thread diameter (the virus is 1000 times smaller), SARS-CoV-2 can easily pass through any facemask.”

                  J. Alex Huffman, an aerosol scientist at the University of Denver, told us in a phone interview that the paper betrayed a fundamental lack of understanding of respiratory aerosols.

                  “Viruses don’t come out of your mouth as naked viruses,” he said. “They come out in liquid drops that are full of mostly water but also some proteins and salts” — and, if someone is sick, virus.

                  Huffman further said in an email that “there is a wide distribution of particle sizes emitted when people breathe, speak, sing, or cough, but the range is anywhere from tens of nanometers to hundreds of microns. Most of these, even after evaporation, are easily removed by good masks.”

                  Indeed, lab studies have shown masks can partially block exhaled respiratory droplets, which are thought to be the primary way the virus spreads. Such studies have limitations, but they continue to suggest that masks — especially ones that are multi-layered and fit well — can play a role in stopping the spread of COVID-19.

                  For example, one study by scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health tested a variety of face coverings for their ability to prevent the outward spread of particles from a simulated cough. N95 respirators performed the best — blocking 99% of the particles — while medical masks blocked 59% and a three-ply cloth mask blocked 51%. (A face shield, on the other hand, stopped just 2%.)

                  And in another experiment, researchers in Japan evaluated how well different masks on two mannequins that faced one another reduced exposure to the coronavirus. One mannequin was connected to a nebulizer, which produced a simulated cough, “mimicking a virus spreader,” and the other was connected to an artificial ventilator to simulate breathing. If both mannequins wore a cotton or surgical mask, transmission decreased by 60% to 70%.

                  For more information on the research surrounding face masks, see our SciCheck story “The Evolving Science of Face Masks and COVID-19.”

                  Vainshelboim’s paper also claims that masks “restrict breathing, causing hypoxemia and hypercapnia.” Hypoxemia is the term for insufficient oxygen in the blood; hypercapnia is the presence of too much carbon dioxide in the bloodstream.

                  Experts have repeatedly rebuffed that claim, and we’ve previously addressed unfounded claims that masks cause unsafe oxygen levels.

                  “For many years, health care providers have worn masks for extended periods of time with no adverse health reactions,” the Mayo Clinic Health System notes. “The CDC recommends wearing cloth masks while in public, and this option is very breathable. There is no risk of hypoxia, which is lower oxygen levels, in healthy adults. Carbon dioxide will freely diffuse through your mask as you breathe.”

                  The American Lung Association also notes: “We wear masks all day long in the hospital. The masks are designed to be breathed through and there is no evidence that low oxygen levels occur.” (However, it recommends that people with preexisting lung disease contact a doctor before wearing an N95 respirator.)
                  Thank you Pargat, much appreciated.

                  Comment


                  • HCQ and covid
                    Some recent publications:

                    Chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for prevention and treatment of COVID-19

                    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33624299/
                    2021 Feb 12

                    Authors' conclusions: HCQ for people infected with COVID-19 has little or no effect on the risk of death and probably no effect on progression to mechanical ventilation. Adverse events are tripled compared to placebo, but very few serious adverse events were found. No further trials of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for treatment should be carried out. These results make it less likely that the drug is effective in protecting people from infection, although this is not excluded entirely. It is probably sensible to complete trials examining prevention of infection, and ensure these are carried out to a high standard to provide unambiguous results.





                    What makes (hydroxy)chloroquine ineffective against COVID-19: insights from cell biology

                    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33693723/
                    2021 Mar 9

                    Abstract

                    Since chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) can inhibit the invasion and proliferation of SARS-CoV-2 in cultured cells, the repurposing of these antimalarial drugs was considered a promising strategy for treatment and prevention of COVID-19. However, despite promising preliminary findings, many clinical trials showed neither significant therapeutic nor prophylactic benefits of CQ and HCQ against COVID-19. Here, we aim to answer the question of why these drugs are not effective against the disease by examining the cellular working mechanisms of CQ and HCQ in prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infections.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post

                      Some recent publications:

                      Chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for prevention and treatment of COVID-19

                      https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33624299/
                      2021 Feb 12

                      Authors' conclusions: HCQ for people infected with COVID-19 has little or no effect on the risk of death and probably no effect on progression to mechanical ventilation. Adverse events are tripled compared to placebo, but very few serious adverse events were found. No further trials of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for treatment should be carried out. These results make it less likely that the drug is effective in protecting people from infection, although this is not excluded entirely. It is probably sensible to complete trials examining prevention of infection, and ensure these are carried out to a high standard to provide unambiguous results.





                      What makes (hydroxy)chloroquine ineffective against COVID-19: insights from cell biology

                      https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33693723/
                      2021 Mar 9

                      Abstract

                      Since chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) can inhibit the invasion and proliferation of SARS-CoV-2 in cultured cells, the repurposing of these antimalarial drugs was considered a promising strategy for treatment and prevention of COVID-19. However, despite promising preliminary findings, many clinical trials showed neither significant therapeutic nor prophylactic benefits of CQ and HCQ against COVID-19. Here, we aim to answer the question of why these drugs are not effective against the disease by examining the cellular working mechanisms of CQ and HCQ in prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infections.
                      Thank you for this information. HCQ does not work well at late-stage COVID. It works very well at early stage COVID ie prehospitalization. A series of designed-to-fail trials sponsored by the WHO, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and other big pharma interests. who wanted to sell expensive therapeutics or vaccines and focused on the wrong patients at the wrong g stage of the disease with a suboptimal protocol ie monotherapy. The most infamous example of pharma-sponsored fraudulent anti HCQ trials was this one in the Lancet and NEJM that was retracted.

                      https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...180-6/fulltext

                      Please show me a single trial or study anywhere that used a combination of HCQ Zinc and antibiotics with early (pre hospitalization) high-risk patients that failed to show efficacy.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Pargat Perrer View Post


                        Hi Peter, I am pasting here some information from factcheck.org (credited to Angelo Fichera):
                        ....
                        Thanks, Pargat. I appreciate you taking the time to find and post that.
                        "We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
                        "Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
                        "If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post
                          The most infamous example of pharma-sponsored fraudulent anti HCQ trials was this one in the Lancet and NEJM that was retracted.

                          https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...180-6/fulltext

                          Please show me a single trial or study anywhere that used a combination of HCQ Zinc and antibiotics with early (pre hospitalization) high-risk patients that failed to show efficacy.

                          I don't think that was any kind of a trial at all:

                          "We did a multinational registry analysis of the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19."



                          I see that after one year nothing new on this front.

                          Potential therapeutic and pharmacological strategies for SARS-CoV2

                          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7933375/
                          2021 Mar 5

                          "Currently, there are no effective drugs targeting SARS-CoV2. Drug repurposing, which is an effective drug discovery strategy from existing drugs, such as anti-inflammatory agents, immunosuppressant or antineoplastic agents, selective estrogen receptor modulators, antiviral drugs, and anti-malaria agents, can shorten the time and reduce costs, compared to de novo drug discovery, according to WHO reports."

                          Sorry but I'm not a doctor nor do trials, nor follow everything. If someone got better after consuming HCQ+Zn+D+WhoKnowsWhatElse good for them. However, this did not become a treatment or cure for everyone, and that it not because of B.Gates or someone else.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post


                            I don't think that was any kind of a trial at all:

                            "We did a multinational registry analysis of the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19."



                            I see that after one year nothing new on this front.

                            Potential therapeutic and pharmacological strategies for SARS-CoV2

                            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7933375/
                            2021 Mar 5

                            "Currently, there are no effective drugs targeting SARS-CoV2. Drug repurposing, which is an effective drug discovery strategy from existing drugs, such as anti-inflammatory agents, immunosuppressant or antineoplastic agents, selective estrogen receptor modulators, antiviral drugs, and anti-malaria agents, can shorten the time and reduce costs, compared to de novo drug discovery, according to WHO reports."

                            Sorry but I'm not a doctor nor do trials, nor follow everything. If someone got better after consuming HCQ+Zn+D+WhoKnowsWhatElse good for them. However, this did not become a treatment or cure for everyone, and that it not because of B.Gates or someone else.
                            Yes a multinational registry of trials with the wrong group of patients at the wrong stage of the disease using a suboptimal protocol.
                            The protocol is the Zelenko protocol and it has saved hundreds of thousands of lives.,

                            https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...24857920304258

                            Here is an excellent paper on why parachutes are useless, let's do a meta-analysis of all papers of this type, yes?

                            https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094

                            By the way, this article done by a friend of mine in Brazil is a good recap of the fraudulent science surrounding Hydroxychloroquine during 2020.

                            https://filiperafaeli.substack.com/p...scientifically
                            Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Friday, 23rd April, 2021, 09:48 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post

                              .......

                              As for the mask "fact check " article here is what actual scientists say

                              https://www.aier.org/article/masking...-the-evidence/
                              You say (in another of your posts) that I'm drinking the Kool-Aid. So, let's see what you've given us in the above post. Let's see "what actual scientists say."

                              aier = American Institute for Economic Research. Here's something interesting from a Wikipedia article about AIER (I know, I know. You can't always trust Wiki but.....still.):

                              AIER statements and publications portray the risks of climate change as minor and manageable,[8] with titles such as "What Greta Thunberg Forgets About Climate Change", "The Real Reason Nobody Takes Environmental Activists Seriously" and "Brazilians Should Keep Slashing Their Rainforest".[9][10][11]

                              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amer...nomic_Research
                              *******************************

                              Sounds a bit iffy from my perspective. Climate change minor and manageable? Does AIER publish the 'truth' or is it just another American organization publishing more politically-slanted crap masquerading as the truth? Maybe I shouldn't judge an organization on the basis of a few sentences on Wiki?

                              OK, so let's take a look at the author of this article you think everyone should read: Paul Elias Alexander. Here's what AIER says about Alexander:

                              Paul E. Alexander received his bachelor’s degree in epidemiology from McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, a master’s degree from Oxford University, and a PhD from McMaster University’s Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact.

                              Sounds impressive although when I searched McMaster's website for an undergrad degree in epidemiology I couldn't find it. Doesn't mean it's not there.....somewhere. Here's what Wiki says about Alexander:


                              Paul Elias Alexander is a Canadian health researcher and a former Trump administration official at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. He attracted attention in 2020 when, as an aide to HHS assistant secretary for public affairs Michael Caputo, he pressured federal scientists and public health agencies to suppress and edit their COVID-19 reports to make them consistent with President Trump's rhetoric on COVID-19.[1][2]

                              So, your big scientist that you want to shove down everyone's throat was a propagandist for Donald Trump?? Wow, that's, um, unimpressive?

                              What else can we find out about Alexander? Here's an article from the Globe and Mail:


                              https://www.theglobeandmail.com/worl...ntroversy-for/

                              I love where Alexander says this:

                              "In a lengthy e-mail to The Globe and Mail on Wednesday and a subsequent interview, Dr. Alexander accused the CDC of “generating pseudo scientific reports” and said he was more qualified to analyze COVID-19 data than the 1,700 scientists at the agency.

                              “None of those people have my skills,” Dr. Alexander said. “I make the judgment whether this is crap.”"

                              Hey Sid, don't you just love it when someone's ego flows out of his/her mouth in a river of hubris? I also liked the part where McMaster issued a statement, last fall, distancing themselves from Alexander.

                              Sorry Sid. I'm going to pass on AIER and Paul E. Alexander. Do you have anything that, according to you, supports your position?


                              P.S. About that Kool-Aid - I think you're the one who's been drinking it, Sid. Have a nice trip and enjoy the patterns!!!







                              ​​​​​​​
                              Last edited by Peter McKillop; Friday, 23rd April, 2021, 04:51 PM.
                              "We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
                              "Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
                              "If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Peter McKillop View Post

                                You say (in another of your posts) that I'm drinking the Kool-Aid. So, let's see what you've given us in the above post. Let's see "what actual scientists say."

                                aier = American Institute for Economic Research. Here's something interesting from a Wikipedia article about AIER (I know, I know. You can't always trust Wiki but.....still.):

                                AIER statements and publications portray the risks of climate change as minor and manageable,[8] with titles such as "What Greta Thunberg Forgets About Climate Change", "The Real Reason Nobody Takes Environmental Activists Seriously" and "Brazilians Should Keep Slashing Their Rainforest".[9][10][11]

                                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amer...nomic_Research
                                *******************************

                                Sounds a bit iffy from my perspective. Climate change minor and manageable? Does AIER publish the 'truth' or is it just another American organization publishing more politically-slanted crap masquerading as the truth? Maybe I shouldn't judge an organization on the basis of a few sentences on Wiki?

                                OK, so let's take a look at the author of this article you think everyone should read: Paul Elias Alexander. Here's what AIER says about Alexander:

                                Paul E. Alexander received his bachelor’s degree in epidemiology from McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, a master’s degree from Oxford University, and a PhD from McMaster University’s Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact.

                                Sounds impressive although when I searched McMaster's website for an undergrad degree in epidemiology I couldn't find it. Doesn't mean it's not there.....somewhere. Here's what Wiki says about Alexander:


                                Paul Elias Alexander is a Canadian health researcher and a former Trump administration official at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. He attracted attention in 2020 when, as an aide to HHS assistant secretary for public affairs Michael Caputo, he pressured federal scientists and public health agencies to suppress and edit their COVID-19 reports to make them consistent with President Trump's rhetoric on COVID-19.[1][2]

                                So, your big scientist that you want to shove down everyone's throat was a propagandist for Donald Trump?? Wow, that's, um, unimpressive?

                                What else can we find out about Alexander? Here's an article from the Globe and Mail:


                                https://www.theglobeandmail.com/worl...ntroversy-for/

                                I love where Alexander says this:

                                "In a lengthy e-mail to The Globe and Mail on Wednesday and a subsequent interview, Dr. Alexander accused the CDC of “generating pseudo scientific reports” and said he was more qualified to analyze COVID-19 data than the 1,700 scientists at the agency.

                                “None of those people have my skills,” Dr. Alexander said. “I make the judgment whether this is crap.”"

                                Hey Sid, don't you just love it when someone's ego flows out of his/her mouth in a river of hubris? I also liked the part where McMaster issued a statement, last fall, distancing themselves from Alexander.

                                Sorry Sid. I'm going to pass on AIER and Paul E. Alexander. Do you have anything that, according to you, supports your position?


                                P.S. About that Kool-Aid - I think you're the one who's been drinking it, Sid. Have a nice trip and enjoy the patterns!!!






                                Dear Peter,
                                Instead of focusing on Paul why not focus on the many papers included in his article that support that masks have mo efficacy when it comes to preventing
                                viral tra\smission.Sorry but you can attac\k his character all you want but something that hangs in the air for up to four hours and is 1/30th the size of the gaps that
                                a mask offers will not convince me in a million years that masks have any efficacy, but you want to believe pseudoscience be my guest,
                                "
                                Please follow our great health minister's insistence that peer-reviewed science that taking supplements like vitamin d help prevent COVId is just "fake news!"! Heck, why do any critical\ thinking at all, just blindly follow the dictates of your great political leaders, why waste money on science! Yep, don't think at all, just let the govt and mass media do the thinking for you!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X