COVID-19 ... how we cope :)

[Bob Armstrong]

No. of USA Doctors

As of March 2020, there were just over one million professionally active physicians in the United States. The number of active specialist physicians in the U.S. totaled around 535,600, and there were approximately 486,400 primary care physicians.

No. of Video Doctors (Anti-Mask, etc.)

I believe there are 19 (Maybe less).

Question: What is their timeline for growing to become the majority of Doctors?

My Answer: Never - this is a minuscule group of obviously committed physicians who are in disagreement with the vast majority of USA Doctors (And world doctors).

Bob A

[Sid Belzberg]

No. of USA Doctors

As of March 2020, there were just over one million professionally active physicians in the United States. The number of active specialist physicians in the U.S. totaled around 535,600, and there were approximately 486,400 primary care physicians.

No. of Video Doctors (Anti-Mask, etc.)

I believe there are 19 (Maybe less).

Question: What is their timeline for growing to become the majority of Doctors?

My Answer: Never - this is a minuscule group of obviously committed physicians who are in disagreement with the vast majority of USA Doctors (And world doctors).

Bob A

Thank you for your thoughtful analysis. My take away from the video (I hope you listened to it carefully) is that each of those Dr's saved thousands of high risk patients verified COVID+ with symptoms and no one died and only a few hospitalizations. That is because they used normal medical practices that have been used since time immemorial. Very simple, treat early , not later!
For someone reason this has been turned upside down.
If you have not listened to the entire video very carefully I would urge you to do so. This is not about politics, it is about saving lives!

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Sid:

I do not doubt the truth of the facts presented by these doctors. They used certain interventions early and got good results.

The issue likely with the rest of the USA and world doctors is that what was used for early intervention is not always on the winning percentages side. It seems to me that there are likely many other doctors who have studied the investigative reports on the early interventions used, and are not sure that the benefit outweighs the risk.

Of course, one is surprised to find the very high percentage of positive results, when most of the studies of them class them as dubious.

At the moment, the experience of 19 doctors does not indicate to me that all negative studies of their early intervention techniques are therefore clearly wrong.

I am just a layman on this.........I have no expertise to understand the conflicting medical science involved on both sides.

I will go with the majority medical view, and the view of most world governments, for the time being.

Of course, it is true that the minority can be right - Galileo was ridiculed for declaring that the earth orbited the son.........we know how that eventually played out.

But is this a "Galileo Case"? I strongly doubt it.

But we each are obligated to make decisions - and we all can have differing views of the same issue, depending on many factors.

Bob A

[Bob Gillanders]

If you have not listened to the entire video very carefully I would urge you to do so. This is not about politics, it is about saving lives!

I only needed to listen to about 2 minutes to realize it is 100% politics. OAN is the network media Trump is turning to when he is disappointed by Fox. In the first 2 minutes they totally take Dr. Fauci's comments out of context. They claim he said masks are totally useless, which is ridiculous because we can see him repeatedly pleading with people to wear masks. Yes, masks are not 100% effective, not the point. They do help in the fight against the virus.

In general, countries that wear masks are doing better than countries that don't wear masks. Of course it is more complicated than that, and we have a lot to learn, but for now that it the obvious truth.

[Sid Belzberg]

I only needed to listen to about 2 minutes to realize it is 100% politics. OAN is the network media Trump is turning to when he is disappointed by Fox. In the first 2 minutes they totally take Dr. Fauci's comments out of context. They claim he said masks are totally useless, which is ridiculous because we can see him repeatedly pleading with people to wear masks. Yes, masks are not 100% effective, not the point. They do help in the fight against the virus.

In general, countries that wear masks are doing better than countries that don't wear masks. Of course it is more complicated than that, and we have a lot to learn, but for now that it the obvious truth.

Without watching all of it you missed the entire point that has everything to do with medicine and nothing to do with politics. The virus is easily treatable when treated early. This group of Dr's is living proof of that. An easily treatable virus does not require masks lockdowns or vaccines. Dr. Fauci turned medicine upside down where zero focus was paid on treating early only focusing on treating late...too late. Countries that did the opposite did well.
Please humor me and watch the entire video. I promise you that it is about saving lives and not about politics and maybe one of the most relevant things you will ever watch in your life.

[Bob Gillanders]

Without watching all of it you missed the entire point that has everything to do with medicine and nothing to do with politics. The virus is easily treatable when treated early. This group of Dr's is living proof of that. An easily treatable virus does not require masks lockdowns or vaccines. Dr. Fauci turned medicine upside down where zero focus was paid on treating early only focusing on treating late...too late. Countries that did the opposite did well.
Please humor me and watch the entire video. I promise you that it is about saving lives and not about politics and maybe one of the most relevant things you will ever watch in your life.

Well you asked nicely, so I watched the entire video.

I learned nothing new. I have heard all these arguments before. It was 36 minutes of pure political propaganda. Each doctor getting their 3 minutes at the podium. Lots of references to George Orwell's 1984, masks are irrelevant, early treatment is good (of course), the media is lying to you, problem solved - nobody is dying anymore, great new drugs, we are doctors - don't fear us: we are not the government, OMG - the deep state is rewriting history.

My favourite was: right up until the COVID19 pandemic, no scientist ever believed masks have any benefit against viruses. OMG, have you never visited someone in the hospital and were asked to wear a mask? Not to mention all the doctors and nurses wearing masks.

Yes, living in fear in lockdown too long has negative side effects. True.
Masks are not 100% guarantee against virus. True. But nobody ever claimed it was.

But seriously Sid. This is all political theatre 2 weeks before the election.

You owe me 36 minutes.

[Sid Belzberg]

Well you asked nicely, so I watched the entire video.

I learned nothing new. I have heard all these arguments before. It was 36 minutes of pure political propaganda. Each doctor getting their 3 minutes at the podium. Lots of references to George Orwell's 1984, masks are irrelevant, early treatment is good (of course), the media is lying to you, problem solved - nobody is dying anymore, great new drugs, we are doctors - don't fear us: we are not the government, OMG - the deep state is rewriting history.

My favourite was: right up until the COVID19 pandemic, no scientist ever believed masks have any benefit against viruses. OMG, have you never visited someone in the hospital and were asked to wear a mask? Not to mention all the doctors and nurses wearing masks.

Yes, living in fear in lockdown too long has negative side effects. True.
Masks are not 100% guarantee against virus. True. But nobody ever claimed it was.

But seriously Sid. This is all political theatre 2 weeks before the election.

You owe me 36 minutes.

"early treatment is good (of course)"
Are you being sarcastic or do we agree on this point?

"problem solved - nobody is dying anymore, great new drugs"

i don't know anywhere in the video where these were referred to as "great new drugs". All of these treatments they deployed re repurposed old drugs used in combo with other known drugs.

Regrettably big pharma does not have any profits in repurposed old drugs and have gone to great lengths to discredit them when it comes to COVID!9. The most extreme example is Remdesevir that was hyped by Dr. Fauci himself as the "standard of care:" even though in trial after trial both in humans and animals it proved to show no efficacy in terms of saving lives and in fact has significant lethal side effects.

The story of hydroxychloroquine forgetting about DJT expressing optimism about it is important.It also is a generic repurposed cheap drug has its own story. This is a really good read that will allow you to see it from where I sit and even the Frontline Dr's who despite being over the top is more of product of their frustration from the irrefutable fact that between them they saved thousands of lives. We are on the same team of humanity I hope so kindly bear with me and read this article. Thanks in advance!

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/s...-morality-tale

[Dilip Panjwani]

The story of hydroxychloroquine

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/s...-morality-tale

Thanks for the article, Sid. It confirms what we all know: Many human beings go to great lengths to achieve, by hook or by crook, financial, political or other personal gain, real or imaginary. Unfortunately, this tendency thrives in our current systems of co-existence, be it communism, socialism, capitalism or monarchy...we do need something better than these...

[Peter McKillop]

....

Regrettably big pharma does not have any profits in repurposed old drugs and have gone to great lengths to discredit them when it comes to COVID!9. The most extreme example is Remdesevir that was hyped by Dr. Fauci himself as the "standard of care:" even though in trial after trial both in humans and animals it proved to show no efficacy in terms of saving lives and in fact has significant lethal side effects. ....

Sid, re the text I've bolded above, I believe you've noted this in a prior post (I didn't try to find it). In fairness to Dr. Fauci, his comment was made 5 1/2 months ago, on April 29/20. That's practically ancient history in 'pandemic time'. If you want to flog the guy over Remdesivir then shouldn't you find something more up to date?

https://www.healio.com/news/infectio...andard-of-care

[Peter McKillop]

....
My favourite was: right up until the COVID19 pandemic, no scientist ever believed masks have any benefit against viruses. OMG, have you never visited someone in the hospital and were asked to wear a mask? Not to mention all the doctors and nurses wearing masks.
....
Masks are not 100% guarantee against virus. True. But nobody ever claimed it was.
....

When it comes to masks (and a lot of other things), I'm on your side, Bob.

Dr. Fauci says to wear a mask, as reported today by CNN:

"In an interview on CBS' "60 Minutes" that aired Sunday [i.e. Oct. 18 - PM], Fauci -- a key member of the administration's coronavirus task force who has been marginalized -- said he wasn't surprised that the President caught Covid-19 given his disdain for social distancing and complained about his image being used in Trump campaign advertising. He also said it didn't make sense to him why Trump "equates wearing a mask with weakness."
"Let's see if we could put this to rest once and for all," Fauci said. "Cloth coverings work," he said, explaining how his view had changed after his initial statements in the early days of the emergency that mask wearing was not necessary.
"Meta analysis studies show that, contrary to what we thought, masks really do work in preventing infection," Fauci said. "When you find out you're wrong, it's a manifestation of your honesty to say, 'Hey, I was wrong. I did subsequent experiments and now it's this way.'"

The CDC says to wear a mask:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...revention.html

Johns Hopkins says to wear a mask:

https://www-hopkinsmedicine-org.cdn....20%25251%2524s

The Mayo Clinic says to wear a mask:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...k/art-20485449

The New England Journal of Medicine says to wear a mask:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2020836

I'm wearing a mask!

[Sid Belzberg]

Sid, re the text I've bolded above, I believe you've noted this in a prior post (I didn't try to find it). In fairness to Dr. Fauci, his comment was made 5 1/2 months ago, on April 29/20. That's practically ancient history in 'pandemic time'. If you want to flog the guy over Remdesivir then shouldn't you find something more up to date?

https://www.healio.com/news/infectio...andard-of-care

Remdesevirs utterly failed in tits most recent WHO trial a few days ago. It was a failed Ebola drug and a failure as a COVID19 Drug. Dr. Fauci knowlingly promoted somrething as "the standard of care" that everyone knew could not work.

[Peter McKillop]

Remdesevirs utterly failed in tits most recent WHO trial a few days ago. It was a failed Ebola drug and a failure as a COVID19 Drug. Dr. Fauci knowlingly promoted somrething as "the standard of care" that everyone knew could not work.

Re the bolded text, surely that depends on whatever credible information was available to Fauci prior to April 29 and not on a recently published WHO study. BTW, the results of another Remdesivir study were published earlier this month in the New England Journal of Medicine. This study had mildy positive conclusions about the drug, as follows:

Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Final Report


CONCLUSIONS

Our data show that remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ACTT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04280705. opens in new tab.)

Here is the article from the NEJM:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007764

And yes, I've noticed that the study was funded by NIAID, Fauci's organization, but I consider that irrelevant to the study's credibility. The real question is, what info did Fauci have on April 29.

[Sid Belzberg]

Re the bolded text, surely that depends on whatever credible information was available to Fauci prior to April 29 and not on a recently published WHO study. BTW, the results of another Remdesivir study were published earlier this month in the New England Journal of Medicine. This study had mildy positive conclusions about the drug, as follows:

Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Final Report


CONCLUSIONS

Our data show that remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ACTT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04280705. opens in new tab.)

Here is the article from the NEJM:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007764

And yes, I've noticed that the study was funded by NIAID, Fauci's organization, but I consider that irrelevant to the study's credibility. The real question is, what info did Fauci have on April 29.

Yes the end point was not mortality which is what counts.

Here is more relevant correspondence.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...021-3/fulltext

"With in vitro and animal evidence suggesting remdesivir is optimally suited for viral prophylaxis or immediately following viral inoculation, why would there have been any reason to expect a different outcome in humans, where SARS-CoV-2 has a median incubation period of 4 days?"

In other words it could never possibly have any efficacy as far as mortality goes in humans.

Here is the trial just released by the WHO. Remdesevir was a bust! They also did a hydroxychloroquine arm in this study as well but that arm was of no value as the HCQ was tested as a monotherapy with late stage patients where it would never work. It is used effectively on onset of early symptoms as a part of a combo of Zinc d3 and antibiotic such as zpack

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....15.20209817v1

At the risk of sounding repetitive please read this article first before continuing discussions.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/s...-morality-tale

[Sid Belzberg]

[Peter McKillop]

Headline from The Irish Times, June 13, 2020:

UCD professor asked to resign from EU committee over Covid-19 claims

Here's the article:

https://www-irishtimes-com.cdn.amppr...aims-1.4277698