COVID-19 ... how we cope :)

[Sid Belzberg]

I hope what you are saying is that those lives would not have been lost if people had taken corrective actions to prevent and treat the disease COVID-19. Please confirm this. You have provided links in the past to lectures where the lecturer claimed that there had not been an increase in excess deaths from COVID-19. The evidence says otherwise. Please confirm that you agree that the increase in the overall death rate in the United States in 2020 is real.

Dear Garland,
"I hope what you are saying is that those lives would not have been lost if people had taken corrective actions to prevent and treat the disease COVID-19". This is a correct paraphrase of my statement.
Secondly, I previously posted here the same figure from the article. I also gave prior years from 2010 -2020. I originally pointed out that many years the toital deaths increased by 100000+.
That is attributable to normal population increases and an aging population. Five Democratic States (and the only States) adopted a policy of sending COVID infected patients into nursing homes to mingle among the population and not treat anyone and simply watch them die. This alone contributed to 12000+ deaths in New York. Multiply* five and you have 60000 extra deaths.
So-net we have 150,000 extra deaths to account for, so far we have seen a huge increase in suicides and drug overdoses thanks to lockdowns as a consequence of not treating anyone early.
When those final figures come in only then can you comment on cause and effect.

BTW the WHO came out with this announcement recently that the definition of COVID+ should go beyond simply
trace RNA being detected from an overly sensitive PCR test. They call for visible symptoms and lower cycle rate test.

WHO Information Notice for IVD Users 2020_05.pdf

[Garland Best]

Dear Garland,
No doubt, given your background you are very familiar with the concept of "cause and effect".

From Professor David Scheim, PhD, (former NIH scientific leader):
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=3765018

Dear Sid,

Yes I am familiar with the concept of "cause and effect". I am particularly familiar with the statement "correlation does not mean causation".

Let's start with the paper. The paper cites the case rates and death rates in Peru. I looked up Peru's stats on https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/peru/.

1) The occurrence of Covid-19 peaked in Peru in mid-August, three months after dispersing of IMV treatments.
2) The number of deaths compared to the number of new cases has remained about 2% to 3% from August onwards. This is comparable to death rates reported in other countries.
3) Death rates were admmited higher in June compared to the rate of new cases over the same month, but similar data can be displayed for the months of April and May here in Canada when we were going through our first wave, and we never adopted IMV as a treatment, yet our case rate declined in the summer months and today our death rates due to Covid relative to case rates remain low compared to 9 months ago.
4) Lima Peru, a single city is 25% of the Peru's population. No other urban center comes close, self-isolating and social distancing is much more difficult in that city compared to the surrounding countryside. So seeing high case rates in the city for a longer duration is not that unusual and again mimics patterns seen in Atlantic Canada compared to Central Canada.

Finally you might want to check the credentials of the authors of this paper.

David Scheim was a computer programmer as NIH. His medical background, if any is in dentistry. See https://corpora.tika.apache.org/base...708/708145.pdf, page 10.
Jennifer A. Hibberd is likewise a dentist.
Juan J. Chamie-Quintero is a data analyst.

[Sid Belzberg]

Dear Sid,

Yes I am familiar with the concept of "cause and effect". I am particularly familiar with the statement "correlation does not mean causation".

Let's start with the paper. The paper cites the case rates and death rates in Peru. I looked up Peru's stats on https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/peru/.

1) The occurrence of Covid-19 peaked in Peru in mid-August, three months after dispersing of IMV treatments.
2) The number of deaths compared to the number of new cases has remained about 2% to 3% from August onwards. This is comparable to death rates reported in other countries.
3) Death rates were admmited higher in June compared to the rate of new cases over the same month, but similar data can be displayed for the months of April and May here in Canada when we were going through our first wave, and we never adopted IMV as a treatment, yet our case rate declined in the summer months and today our death rates due to Covid relative to case rates remain low compared to 9 months ago.
4) Lima Peru, a single city is 25% of the Peru's population. No other urban center comes close, self-isolating and social distancing is much more difficult in that city compared to the surrounding countryside. So seeing high case rates in the city for a longer duration is not that unusual and again mimics patterns seen in Atlantic Canada compared to Central Canada.

Finally you might want to check the credentials of the authors of this paper.

David Scheim was a computer programmer as NIH. His medical background, if any is in dentistry. See https://corpora.tika.apache.org/base...708/708145.pdf, page 10.
Jennifer A. Hibberd is likewise a dentist.
Juan J. Chamie-Quintero is a data analyst.

Dear Garland,
You have the cause and effect backwards. Lima did not use IVM and suffered the consequences. So let me share with you this meta analysis of all major IVM
papers we did. You fancy yourself as an expert in Bayesian analysis so please note this comment.

"The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 35 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 34 billion (p = 0.000000000029)."

https://ivmmeta.com/
Please show me a refutation to this analysis. The papers analyzed are all listed at the bottom. Please, by all means show us your critique of the credentials of all of thousands of Dr's and scientists that were part of this research effort.


You bring up Canada, let me share with you an email sent from one of my colleagues to the Premiere of Ontario.



From: Paul Elias Alexander
To: Doug Ford <premier.correspondence@ontario.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2020, 01:29:11 p.m. EST
Subject: Re: An email from the Premier of Ontario Premier Ford December 30th


Dear Premier Ford, much best wishes to you and family and government in our trying times.


I now enclose a scientific paper published today where I am a co-author scientist, that underscores the benefits of early outpatient treatment for COVID positive symptomatic patients, in their private homes or nursing homes. This approach reduces hospitalization and death.


Please give to your COVID team. This is one approach that could be significant in addressing the pandemic and the challenges we have here, especially for our precious elderly who are anguishing in our nursing homes. We have an option. Can I have the chance to talk with the team and include the relevant experts to help address the elevated hospitalizations and deaths? I leave this to your decision making.


Respectively,


Paul

Best,


Paul E. Alexander, PhD
Health Research Methodologist
Evidence-Based-Medicine
Department of Health Research
Methods, Evidence and Impact
McMaster University

Assistant Professor
http://hei.mcmaster.ca/
GUIDE Research Methods Group

http://guidecanada.org/

Here is the paper he is referring to, perhaps you would care to criticize the credentials of the people on this paper as well.

https://rcm.imrpress.com/EN/10.31083/j.rcm.2020.04.264


Maybe you would like to tell us that the 200 Ontario Doctors and researchers referenced in this article are not as wise as you.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/long-term-...204225278.html

[Peter McKillop]

Here is the paper he is referring to, perhaps you would care to criticize the credentials of the people on this paper as well.

https://rcm.imrpress.com/EN/10.31083/j.rcm.2020.04.264

Ideally, shouldn't people who post links here do their own credential checking and as a courtesy (a) let everyone know up front if there is an issue and (b) explain why, notwithstanding the issue, they still support what is said in the linked paper/etc.?

Maybe you would like to tell us that the 200 Ontario Doctors and researchers referenced in this article are not as wise as you.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/long-term-...204225278.html

I hope Garland would tell us that **if it was true**. But, per my point above, why should the reader of your post have to do all that work?

[Sid Belzberg]

Ideally, shouldn't people who post links here do their own credential checking and as a courtesy (a) let everyone know up front if there is an issue and (b) explain why, notwithstanding the issue, they still support what is said in the linked paper/etc.?



I hope Garland would tell us that **if it was true**. But, per my point above, why should the reader of your post have to do all that work?

No idea what your point is, Garlands comments on the credentials of the author's original paper were entirely irrelevant to the substance of the paper.
To Garland's credit, at least he discussed the actual content of the paper. Something you rarely do.

What is occurring in Ontario is a humanitarian crisis with so many nursing homes infected and no provision for in-facility treatment of C19. Unconscionable.
Please focus on that and not your usual bullshit arguments.

[Bob Gillanders]

No idea what your point is, Garlands comments on the credentials of the author's original paper were entirely irrelevant to the substance of the paper.
To Garland's credit, at least he discussed the actual content of the paper. Something you rarely do.

OMG, the credentials and CREDIBILITY of the author is ALWAYS relevant.

I learned that lesson years ago with the climate change debate. Climate change deniers would find BS articles on the web and post them. You read them, waste time researching them, debunk them, then the climate change deniers simply find another BS website article and post it. Repeat and rinse, repeat and rinse. I believe the term is trolling.

It appears to me you have just admitted to be a troll.

Always consider the credibility of the source. Not everything you read on the internet is true. duh!!

[Sid Belzberg]

Dear Bob,
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the credentials of
the authors of any papers I submitted hence Garland’s
comments were irrelevant.
Attack the message and not the messenger. Stop insulting ne
me. You want to discuss why early intervention is not viable
please by all means do so. Else back off.

[Garland Best]

Ideally, shouldn't people who post links here do their own credential checking and as a courtesy (a) let everyone know up front if there is an issue and (b) explain why, notwithstanding the issue, they still support what is said in the linked paper/etc.?



I hope Garland would tell us that **if it was true**. But, per my point above, why should the reader of your post have to do all that work?

Thanks for the support Peter. But if people are providing links as evidence to promote a view, it is only sensible for persons opposing that view to take the time to analyze them. I would expect Sid to make the same sort of study and breakdown of links I post. When I have the time I will look at the other paper Sid posted a link to.

When people start making remarks about my "wisdom" rather than refuting the logic in my arguments, to me it indicates my arguments are correct. Sid's only statement that seems to contradict my argument is when he said that I have "cause and effect backwards" regarding cases in Lima. I do not. The paper states that numbers in Lima did not go down for 2 months after neighboring regions because they introduced the IMV in that region 2 months later than the rest of the country. I am arguing that that is not necessarily the root cause and that the root cause could simply be that the higher population density made it harder to control the outbreak in Lima than in more rural areas. One cannot just point to correlations as proof without eliminating all other possible root causes. That's the whole point behind clinical trials. To be honest I can't even understand Sid's statement that I have cause and effect backwards regarding Lima. That would imply that I think that people in Lima decided not to take IMV because the number of new cases were still high.

[Sid Belzberg]

Dear Garland,
You provide no substantiation to support your hypothesis that the introduction of IVM in Lima was not the main contributing
factor to reduced deaths.
In fact a recent study out of Stanford show lockdowns do
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13484
not have good efficacy and the poor results to date in many Western countries that have resorted to therapeutic nihilism
relying only on lockdowns support that view.
I eagerly await your response to the other link I provided.
Thanks,
Sid

[Peter McKillop]

Dear Garland,
You have the cause and effect backwards. Lima did not use IVM and suffered the consequences. So let me share with you this meta analysis of all major IVM
papers we did. You fancy yourself as an expert in Bayesian analysis so please note this comment.

"The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 35 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 34 billion (p = 0.000000000029)."

https://ivmmeta.com/
Please show me a refutation to this analysis. The papers analyzed are all listed at the bottom. Please, by all means show us your critique of the credentials of all of thousands of Dr's and scientists that were part of this research effort.


You bring up Canada, let me share with you an email sent from one of my colleagues to the Premiere of Ontario.



From: Paul Elias Alexander
To: Doug Ford <premier.correspondence@ontario.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2020, 01:29:11 p.m. EST
Subject: Re: An email from the Premier of Ontario Premier Ford December 30th


Dear Premier Ford, much best wishes to you and family and government in our trying times.


I now enclose a scientific paper published today where I am a co-author scientist, that underscores the benefits of early outpatient treatment for COVID positive symptomatic patients, in their private homes or nursing homes. This approach reduces hospitalization and death.


Please give to your COVID team. This is one approach that could be significant in addressing the pandemic and the challenges we have here, especially for our precious elderly who are anguishing in our nursing homes. We have an option. Can I have the chance to talk with the team and include the relevant experts to help address the elevated hospitalizations and deaths? I leave this to your decision making.


Respectively,


Paul

Best,


Paul E. Alexander, PhD
Health Research Methodologist
Evidence-Based-Medicine
Department of Health Research
Methods, Evidence and Impact
McMaster University

Assistant Professor
http://hei.mcmaster.ca/
GUIDE Research Methods Group

http://guidecanada.org/

Here is the paper he is referring to, perhaps you would care to criticize the credentials of the people on this paper as well.

https://rcm.imrpress.com/EN/10.31083/j.rcm.2020.04.264


Maybe you would like to tell us that the 200 Ontario Doctors and researchers referenced in this article are not as wise as you.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/long-term-...204225278.html

Here is another example, Sid, of you presenting information in a way which is potentially detrimental to the point(s) you're trying to make. Why bring Alexander into it? Why not just present the articles/studies you want to present, make any comments you want, and then let other people read and discuss? Instead you bring in Alexander who according to Wikipedia is a Trumpist sychophant who spent much of 2020 working for Trump while trying to censor/change CDC and NIH data for the benefit of Trump and to the possible detriment of the American people.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Elias_Alexander

[Sid Belzberg]

Here is another example, Sid, of you presenting information in a way which is potentially detrimental to the point(s) you're trying to make. Why bring Alexander into it? Why not just present the articles/studies you want to present, make any comments you want, and then let other people read and discuss? Instead you bring in Alexander who according to Wikipedia is a Trumpist sychophant who spent much of 2020 working for Trump while trying to censor/change CDC and NIH data for the benefit of Trump and to the possible detriment of the American people.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Elias_Alexander

Why not just present the articles/studies you want to present, make any comments you want, and then let other people read and discuss?

Peter, I posted Alexander's paper, here it is again https://rcm.imrpress.com/EN/10.31083/j.rcm.2020.04.264
Please amaze us for once in your life and comment on the paper itself instead of politicizing medicine and misrepresenting my posts.
The sooner you get it through your head that this is not about politics and all about saving lives the better!
If you don't like my posts or how they are presented then stop reading them.

[Garland Best]

Dear Garland,
In fact a recent study out of Stanford show lockdowns do
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13484
not have good efficacy and the poor results to date in many Western countries that have resorted to therapeutic nihilism
relying only on lockdowns support that view.
Sid

Fight fire with fire I say.

See https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....19.20181057v1

Findings The estimated basic reproduction number R_0 was 2.36 (95% CI: 2.28, 2.45) in Toronto. After the implementation of the SAHP, the contact rate outside the household fell by 39%.
Interpretation Our model confirmed that the SAHP implemented in Toronto had a great impact in controlling the spread of COVID-19.

Or https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentra...89-020-09817-9

Conclusions
Our study supports the association between the timing of stay-at-home orders and the time to peak case and death counts for both countries and US states. Regions in which mandates were implemented late experienced a prolonged duration to reaching both peak daily case and death counts.

Or https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...ad-study-finds

They found that the community infection rate dropped from 12% more cases each day (indicating that cases were doubling every 5 or 6 days) to 5% (indicating that cases were doubling every 14 days) after the states locked down starting Mar 19 to Apr 7.

These are 3 of the top 4 results from the google search "effectivness of stay at home orders on covid-19 transmission"

(Full disclosure: Result number 3 of the search was https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...366-1/fulltext, which reviews how stay-at-home orders negatively affect financial and mental health of mothers and wives in Bangladesh. I fully concede that these measures do harm people's financial and mental health.)

[Garland Best]

Peter, I posted Alexander's paper, here it is again https://rcm.imrpress.com/EN/10.31083/j.rcm.2020.04.264
Please amaze us for once in your life and comment on the paper itself instead of politicizing medicine and misrepresenting my posts.

I read it. The paper provides no original evidence that these treatments are of benefit. At best it simply cites other studies as evidence. It promotes practically every possible treatment from IVM to Hydroxychloroquine to Zinc, to Vitamins C and D. They literally concede "At this time there are no reports of conclusive randomized trials of oral ambulatory therapy for COVID-19 and none are expected in the short term.".

PS: Here is criticism piece on the Journal itself that published the article. https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/garyschwitzer/34264

[Garland Best]

Dear Garland,
You fancy yourself as an expert in Bayesian analysis so please note this comment.

"The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 35 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 34 billion (p = 0.000000000029)."

https://ivmmeta.com/
Please show me a refutation to this analysis. The papers analyzed are all listed at the bottom. Please, by all means show us your critique of the credentials of all of thousands of Dr's and scientists that were part of this research effort.

I finally checked this link out. You actually expect me to give credence to a website titled "https://ivmmeta.com/" to be an unbiased publisher of data? When the publishers of the cite states that they won't give their names, giving vague references to firing and death threats requiring anonymity? When they also promote other treatments at the top, and don't show a single analysis indicating that there are other treatments that are not effective?

It will take me weeks of study to learn what things like the "Random-effects (DerSimonian and Laird) method for meta-analysis" are and how they would be used to generate the data. And I would have to also determine if they have been truly non-biased in their selection of articles in their meta-analysis. Until then I have to go with where the data is published. If this info was truly reliable it could be published in an actual science journal.

This much I was able to figure out. The probability number itself is calculated as "there are 35 positive studies and zero negative studies, so the odds are one in (2 to the power of 35), which is 34.36 billion". All I have to do is find a bunch of negative result studies, toss them into the math and there goes your 1 in 34 billion number.

[Garland Best]

Here is another example, Sid, of you presenting information in a way which is potentially detrimental to the point(s) you're trying to make. Why bring Alexander into it? Why not just present the articles/studies you want to present, make any comments you want, and then let other people read and discuss? Instead you bring in Alexander who according to Wikipedia is a Trumpist sychophant who spent much of 2020 working for Trump while trying to censor/change CDC and NIH data for the benefit of Trump and to the possible detriment of the American people.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Elias_Alexander

I just read the following article https://www.politico.com/news/2020/1...trategy-446408 . Paul wanted to infect everyone, generate herd immunity!

[I]“There is no other way, we need to establish herd, and it only comes about allowing the non-high risk groups expose themselves to the virus. PERIOD," then-science adviser Paul Alexander wrote on July 4 to his boss, Health and Human Services assistant secretary for public affairs Michael Caputo, and six other senior officials.

"Infants, kids, teens, young people, young adults, middle aged with no conditions etc. have zero to little risk….so we use them to develop herd…we want them infected…" Alexander added.
"t may be that it will be best if we open up and flood the zone and let the kids and young folk get infected" in order to get "natural immunity…natural exposure," Alexander wrote on July 24 to Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen Hahn, Caputo and eight other senior officials.

Are you kidding me??? This is one of Sid's colleagues???