COVID-19 ... how we cope :)

[Aris Marghetis]

Thank goodness, we have Sid, right here on a chess forum, to overturn years of science, as he rails against big pharma and tells us that doctors want people to wear masks to take away their individuality. And there is no need to worry about the virus as it is easily treated. Forget that thousands each day die. Sid knows best. Forget the people who work their entire life on these issues. Sid knows best.

I think you should take your crap over to Parler or 8chan. You will find lots of people there who will eat your crap up.

Brian, please continue posting, I appreciate your apparent sense of ethics, morality, etc.

According to Worldometers.info, another 12,684 souls were lost worldwide just yesterday.

[Sid Belzberg]

Brian, please continue posting, I appreciate your apparent sense of ethics, morality, etc.

According to Worldometers.info, another 12,684 souls were lost worldwide just yesterday.

Yes and early intervention even if it is for a flu or cold virus would reduce mortality. If Flu vaccines worked we would not have hundreds of thousands of deaths every year nor we need
a new flu vaccine every year. These early intervention treatments have been known for decades but have not been encouraged as it would canibolize big pharma's business model.
By the way, since when was Brian Profit appointed the one who gets to judge what posters view points have to be on chesstalk?

[Peter McKillop]

...
By the way, since when was Brian Profit appointed the one who gets to judge what posters view points have to be on chesstalk?

I appointed Brian, on September 23, 2008, to judge ChessTalk posters and their viewpoints harshly. Very harshly. In fact, the position description I drew up for Brian lists one duty: "Judge harshly." What sold me on Brian, versus the other 31 applicants, was his business card:

BRIAN PROFIT
have laptop - will travel

[Neil Frarey]

I appointed Brian, on September 23, 2008, to judge ChessTalk posters and their viewpoints harshly. Very harshly. In fact, the position description I drew up for Brian lists one duty: "Judge harshly." What sold me on Brian, versus the other 31 applicants, was his business card:

BRIAN PROFIT
have laptop - will travel

Now that explains everything and why you messaged me to stop commenting ... you're actually Lord Peter McKillop, LOOL!!!

lordpetermckillop_1.gif

...my bad.

[Pargat Perrer]

I appointed Brian, on September 23, 2008, to judge ChessTalk posters and their viewpoints harshly. Very harshly. In fact, the position description I drew up for Brian lists one duty: "Judge harshly." What sold me on Brian, versus the other 31 applicants, was his business card:

BRIAN PROFIT
have laptop - will travel

If we had "early intervention" of new posts on ChessTalk, members would not have to smoke weed before they could handle reading posts here! :)

[Pargat Perrer]

Yes and early intervention even if it is for a flu or cold virus would reduce mortality. If Flu vaccines worked we would not have hundreds of thousands of deaths every year nor we need
a new flu vaccine every year. These early intervention treatments have been known for decades but have not been encouraged as it would canibolize big pharma's business model.
By the way, since when was Brian Profit appointed the one who gets to judge what posters view points have to be on chesstalk?

Sid, you are taking a lot of abuse here, and I think it's only natural. You are attempting to talk with some authority on the subject, yet as far as we all know, you are not doing the same in the public media nor as any kind of "advisor", for example a counterpoint to Dr. Fauci and advising Trump.

I just don't get what you are trying to accomplish by posting to a small group of chess enthusiasts about this totally non-chess topic. And I think that's why you are getting the cold shoulder, because no one else can make sense of it either and your views go against the prevailing scientific views (at least the majority of them).

[Lucas Davies]

The recent papers you put forward are pseudoscience and by the many important papers do not say "more research needed" as you have asserted that this is boiler plate language in all scientific papers. Papers with conclusive results do not state this, this is the jargon for 2020 pseudoscience papers.

I took a look at this C19study website. Here are some quotes from some of the first positive non-preprint studies I looked at on there:

Randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm these preliminary findings.

https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advanc...faa563/5992463

The possible beneficial, harmful or neutral role of ACEI or ARB remains a matter of debate, and larger studies are probably needed

https://portlandpress.com/bioscirep/...-of-outcome-in
(The site claims that this study shows "lower mortality with HCQ treatment," but I can't find this anywhere in the study. The only mention of HCQ that I can find is that all the patients in the study were given it, and that some people at their Division of Medicine could not be given antiviral or antimalarial agents because of a lack of supply. No where does it seem to compare people who were and were not given the drug.)

A possible drawback of HCQ prophylaxis is the risk for selecting resistant microorganisms, as has been described for Plasmodium spp. However, at present we do not have any data about SARS-CoV-2 resistance to HCQ

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...52297520301657

Hydroxychloroquine could be associated with survival benefit, but this data need to be confirmed with prospective trials.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7649104/

The main limitations of the study are its small sample size and nonrandomized retrospective observational design, due to which a definite cause and effect relation cannot be established. Moreover, it is possible that the study results may have been influenced by several confounding factors which could not be measured. A large-scale multicentric prophylactic randomized trial is required to establish the role of HCQ prophylaxis.

https://www.marinemedicalsociety.in/...;aulast=Mathai

Further randomized trials are warranted.

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-94509/v1

So yes, it would seem that studies with conclusive results do say that more research is required. This is simply how science works. One study does not provide definitive proof; it contributes to the body of research. The authors so frequently state at the end that further research is required because they are recommending to other researchers what they can do to further contribute. It's very bizarre to claim that this is "jargon for 2020 pseudoscience papers" when this has been standard practice for decades. Of course, you don't need to believe me. I looked up some older studies on hydroxychloroquine:

There is only sparse evidence for its role in combination with other such drugs and further studies need to be carried out in this area.

https://academic.oup.com/rheumatolog...186/360382.pdf (1997)

A prospective study of hydroxychloroquine in patients fulfilling San Diego criteria for SS is indicated.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8803908/ (1996)

Further prospective studies are needed to determine whether this treatment option should be considered a standard component of rheumatoid arthritis combination therapy in the future, and to evaluate the potential role of hydroxychloroquine as a preventive agent for diabetes among high-risk individuals in the general population.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...article/207908 (2007)

Future multicenter controlled studies and postmarketing surveillance are necessary to address these issues.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...article/201613 (2005)

[Sid Belzberg]

I took a look at this C19study website. Here are some quotes from some of the first positive non-preprint studies I looked at on there:


https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advanc...faa563/5992463


https://portlandpress.com/bioscirep/...-of-outcome-in
(The site claims that this study shows "lower mortality with HCQ treatment," but I can't find this anywhere in the study. The only mention of HCQ that I can find is that all the patients in the study were given it, and that some people at their Division of Medicine could not be given antiviral or antimalarial agents because of a lack of supply. No where does it seem to compare people who were and were not given the drug.)



https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...52297520301657


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7649104/


https://www.marinemedicalsociety.in/...;aulast=Mathai


https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-94509/v1

So yes, it would seem that studies with conclusive results do say that more research is required. This is simply how science works. One study does not provide definitive proof; it contributes to the body of research. The authors so frequently state at the end that further research is required because they are recommending to other researchers what they can do to further contribute. It's very bizarre to claim that this is "jargon for 2020 pseudoscience papers" when this has been standard practice for decades. Of course, you don't need to believe me. I looked up some older studies on hydroxychloroquine:


https://academic.oup.com/rheumatolog...186/360382.pdf (1997)


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8803908/ (1996)


https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...article/207908 (2007)


https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...article/201613 (2005)

Yes, as I stated, truly IMPORTANT papers do not say this, from this site here are the two most important and definitively conclusive papers.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...258?via%3Dihub

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...693v1.full.pdf

[Lucas Davies]

Yes, truly important papers do not say this

I literally just took studies from the site that you keep linking...? Here's another study that you linked: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-77093-z

So keeping these in view a multicentre study with large number of subjects can be carried out or a large pooled prospective datasets can be collected to re-assess the result and will generate more robust conclusions.

[Sid Belzberg]

I literally just took studies from the site that you keep linking...? Here's another study that you linked: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-77093-z

Here are the two most IMPORTANT definitively conclusive papers on the c19study.com website. Read them careful and hopefully it will open
your mind to the idea that early treatment negates the need for masks, lockdowns, and rushed therefore very dangerous vaccines. I can
hardly believe that in 2020 the concept of treating a disease early is considered controversial,very sad.


https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...258?via%3Dihub

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...693v1.full.pdf

[Sid Belzberg]

Sid, you are taking a lot of abuse here, and I think it's only natural. You are attempting to talk with some authority on the subject, yet as far as we all know, you are not doing the same in the public media nor as any kind of "advisor", for example a counterpoint to Dr. Fauci and advising Trump.

I just don't get what you are trying to accomplish by posting to a small group of chess enthusiasts about this totally non-chess topic. And I think that's why you are getting the cold shoulder, because no one else can make sense of it either and your views go against the prevailing scientific views (at least the majority of them).

nor as any kind of "advisor", for example a counterpoint to Dr. Fauci and advising Trump.

I in fact only have a Bsc molecular Biology and did work in a virology lab for a few years. However, I am a voracious reader on the subject and have been for many years.
Sometimes on this forum I get interesting responses from those that are more knowledgeable then me on certain subjects and have learned a great deal over the years by investigating other points of view. For example one year we had a discussion about the "standard model" of quantum physics and a knowledgeable poster introduced me to an opposite idea the pilot wave theory that I found fascinating.
In the area under discussion one of the posters here is a medical Dr who "personally is not opposed to early treatment of the disease." I would hope people consider the information carefully and some do. We all can learn from each other and many do chose to intelligently consider the actual data presented.

[Kerry Liles]

I in fact only have a Bsc molecular Biology and did work in a virology lab for a few years. However, I am a voracious reader on the subject and have been for many years.
Sometimes on this forum I get interesting responses from those that are more knowledgeable then me on certain subjects and have learned a great deal over the years by investigating other points of view. For example one yer we had a discussion about the "standard model" of quantum physics and a knowledgeable poster introduced me to an opposite idea the pilot wave theory that I found fascinating.
In the area under discussion one of the posters here is a medical Dr who "personally is not opposed to early treatment of the disease." I would hope people consider the information carefully and some do. We all can learn from each other and many do chose to intelligently the actual data presented.

Early treatment of any disease is clearly something that is desirable. What is happening in the real world (it seems) is that there isn't enough or any early treatment for COVID and since the case numbers and deaths are rising nearly everywhere it seems that early treatment was not started and still isn't being employed. If you are suggesting a conspiracy to avoid proper treatment that is
propagated by "big Pharma" then that strikes me as a stretch. I cannot believe that hundreds and thousands of doctors, nurses and other front line workers are oblivious to such a scheme.

In fact, that whole scenario reminds me a LOT of the case that Trump and his close sycophants are making for the stealing of the election by an amazing Democrat cabal that conspired to rig voting machines, turn away only Trump voters etc.

One question for Sid: when an approved vaccine is available will YOU take it or are you already self-administering some early treatment for yourself?

Another question (asked before but never answered AFAIK): do you wear a mask in public places or other places where it is mandated or are you an anti-masker?

(unless you answer those two questions, please don't bother replying)

[Lucas Davies]

Here are the two most IMPORTANT definitively conclusive papers on the c19study.com website. Read them careful and hopefully it will open
your mind to the idea that early treatment negates the need for masks, lockdowns, and rushed therefore very dangerous vaccines. I can
hardly believe that in 2020 the concept of treating a disease early is considered controversial,very sad.


https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...258?via%3Dihub

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...693v1.full.pdf

I never argued against early treatment. My arguments have been that masks are effective at mitigating the spread of COVID, and that research papers commonly say something at the end about more research being required.

To be honest, I find your views to be difficult to understand. You seem to say that the case numbers and the death numbers are fake and you previously said that the pandemic is actually over, but you simultaneously espouse the need for this early treatment. If the pandemic's over, what are these studies on hydroxychloroquine even looking at? What do they need to treat if it's all fake?

[Sid Belzberg]

Early treatment of any disease is clearly something that is desirable. What is happening in the real world (it seems) is that there isn't enough or any early treatment for COVID and since the case numbers and deaths are rising nearly everywhere it seems that early treatment was not started and still isn't being employed. If you are suggesting a conspiracy to avoid proper treatment that is propagated by "big Pharma" then that strikes me as a stretch. I cannot believe that hundreds and thousands of doctors, nurses and other front line workers are oblivious to such a scheme.

In fact, that whole scenario reminds me a LOT of the case that Trump and his close sycophants are making for the stealing of the election by an amazing Democrat cabal that conspired to rig voting machines, turn away only Trump voters etc.

One question for Sid: when an approved vaccine is available will YOU take it or are you already self-administering some early treatment for yourself?

Another question (asked before but never answered AFAIK): do you wear a mask in public places or other places where it is mandated or are you an anti-masker?

(unless you answer those two questions, please don't bother replying)

I cannot believe that hundreds and thousands of doctors, nurses and other front line workers are oblivious to such a scheme.

I don't believe that either. I do believe that most Dr's and nurses are being misled by health authorities in charge and that for the first time in history govts have
took it on themselves to interfere in a Dr Patient relationship by banning off label use of commonly approved drugs normally used for early treatment. I believe health authorities have been corrupted by big pharma's agenda to sell expensive therapeutics as well as vaccines and this has been the case for many years. Here is a 2010 article from Forbes magazine that curiously was redacted by Forbes only a few months ago.

.https://thewallwillfall.org/2020/11/...mpression=true

In fact, that whole scenario reminds me a LOT of the case that Trump and his close sycophants are making for the stealing of the election by an amazing Democrat cabal that conspired to rig voting machines, turn away only Trump voters etc.

The problem with this statement is that you are assuming no evidence exists. Lets look at an election of candiate A and Candidate B where polls indicate roughly a 50 50 split with a few million voters. If suddenly candidate A gets 100000 consecutive votes all in his favor the probability of that happening is roughly 1 in 2 to the power of 100000. The probability of winnning loto Canada is roughly 1 in 14 million or roughly 1 in 2 to the power of 24. Therefore in this scenario if someone won loto Canada 4500 times in a row would you not think something is wrong with this lottery?
Some cases have previously been argued in the Supreme court where statistical evidence is accepted. So only now are some of these cases from various States working their way thorough the State court systems with one of the cases now at the Supreme courts doorstep for them to decide if they will hear the case. They will be the ultimate umpire, not you or I.

One question for Sid: when an approved vaccine is available will YOU take it or are you already self-administering some early treatment for yourself?

I work very closely on a volunteer basis with the Frontline Dr's of America and have assisted them with research. They are strong advocates of early treatment. In consultation with them I have successfully used Quercetin D3 C and Zn when I felt like I had flu like symptoms as did my wife and as expected and supported by research it worked fine.I am close with several elderly friends with comorbidites with at least one with severe symptoms who are very thankful I put them in touch with these people and their lives were saved.I would never willingly take an improperly tested rushed vaccine. Here is why

"Covid vax has similar parts to human proteins. When one receives the vaccine, Covid exposure may cause massive cytokine storm. Pathogenic priming likely contributes to serious and critical illness and mortality in COVID-19 via autoimmunity - ScienceDirect"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...89909020300186

Another question (asked before but never answered AFAIK): do you wear a mask in public places or other places where it is mandated or are you an anti-masker?

I wear masks where it is required ie stores, on the bus etc out of respect to the proprietors/employees simply trying to make a living. I do not agree with mask mandates for reasons already discussed.

[Sid Belzberg]

I never argued against early treatment. My arguments have been that masks are effective at mitigating the spread of COVID, and that research papers commonly say something at the end about more research being required.

To be honest, I find your views to be difficult to understand. You seem to say that the case numbers and the death numbers are fake and you previously said that the pandemic is actually over, but you simultaneously espouse the need for this early treatment. If the pandemic's over, what are these studies on hydroxychloroquine even looking at? What do they need to treat if it's all fake?

My arguments have been that masks are effective at mitigating the spread of COVID,

No conclusive scientific research proves this and in fact up until 2020 the vast majority of research indicated the opposite with respect to RNA virues.

and that research papers commonly say something at the end about more research being required.

I agree with that statement but you also have conclusive research papers that do not say this.

To be honest, I find your views to be difficult to understand. You seem to say that the case numbers and the death numbers are fake and you previously said that the pandemic is actually over, but you simultaneously espouse the need for this early treatment. If the pandemic's over, what are these studies on hydroxychloroquine even looking at? What do they need to treat if it's all fake?

"
Yes the case numbers indicate that show that 90%+ of PCR "cases are false positives The death numbers are fake insofar as they are lumping many desths from other causes as COVID.
The good news about early treatments is that they are good for many RNA virues, not just COVID. Big pharma does not want to see flu treated early as it ruins their flu vaccine business that works so poorly that they have a new flu vaccine every yearr and yet we still see hundreds of thousands dying from the flu every year.