Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

COVID deaths still declining

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

  • Originally posted by Roy View Post
    According to the NIH factsheet anosmia is associated with an excess of zinc, not a deficiency. Mikewhitney is basically saying that people with symptoms of zinc poisoning should take more zinc.

    Morons like him are getting people killed.
    Your link is a bit useful. Stoic made a correction to your conclusion. I had thought Zinc was a metal to be cautious with. The main problem could be when someone swallows a coin.

    I'm wondering if recommended Zinc levels in nasal sprays could occur too readily ... or people just use too much.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
      The part that you quoted has no research studies within it
      It has ALL STUDIES within it; all studies which had been submitted for review as part of the HCQ approval for emergency authorization.

      Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
      so I'm not sure how you relied on that.
      That's because you don't actually understand this subject you're endlessly posting about.

      You haven't posted a single study here. Not once. What you've posted are reports/articles about the studies, or (less frequently) incomplete distillations of the study's data. You don't actually understand any of them in anything more than a superficial manner, which is why you trying to sound like you understand this better than everyone else here is pretty amusing :)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Whateverman View Post
        It has ALL STUDIES within it; all studies which had been submitted for review as part of the HCQ approval for emergency authorization.


        That's because you don't actually understand this subject you're endlessly posting about.

        You haven't posted a single study here. Not once. What you've posted are reports/articles about the studies, or (less frequently) incomplete distillations of the study's data. You don't actually understand any of them in anything more than a superficial manner, which is why you trying to sound like you understand this better than everyone else here is pretty amusing :)
        I think your eyesight is weird ... you are seeing more studies in the text you posted than I saw in your copied text. The important thing, however, is to get updated dated instead of 45 day old information.

        Ok. Here's the other thread where I posted a study: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...420#post770420

        The study pdf is https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...852v1.full.pdf

        The c9study.com has the summaries and more detail. It still is a good place to start because it summarizes which studies show HCQ as effective.
        Last edited by mikewhitney; 08-04-2020, 01:16 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
          Originally posted by Whateverman View Post
          You haven't posted a single study here. Not once. What you've posted are reports/articles about the studies, or (less frequently) incomplete distillations of the study's data. You don't actually understand any of them in anything more than a superficial manner, which is why you trying to sound like you understand this better than everyone else here is pretty amusing :)
          The study pdf is https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...852v1.full.pdf
          That's not a study. Did you actually read it? Here's the text at the top of the page:



          Like I said, that's an article / report about a study.

          You did not read or post the actual study.

          Thanks for supporting my claim for me.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Whateverman View Post
            That's not a study. Did you actually read it? Here's the text at the top of the page:



            Like I said, that's an article / report about a study.

            You did not read or post the actual study.

            Thanks for supporting my claim for me.
            Your desperation and delusion is strong. You really are grasping at straws. How is that not a study? It may be in a preliminary form. However, the data is not going to change. They may change a few things to make it prettier. They may have submitted to a journal and awaiting approval.

            Certainly now... this is more specific of a study than you have provided for discussion.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
              Your desperation and delusion is strong. You really are grasping at straws. How is that not a study? It may be in a preliminary form. However, the data is not going to change. They may change a few things to make it prettier. They may have submitted to a journal and awaiting approval.
              Maybe, but it is outdated, unpublished?, and I cited a more comprehensive review of all the research, and the best that can be said is that has some success when used with other medicines and methods. No research whatsoever has shown it has preventive capability.

              Certainly now... this is more specific of a study than you have provided for discussion.
              I provided an extensive review of most of the research and you have failed to acknowledge it.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Maybe, but it is outdated, unpublished?, and I cited a more comprehensive review of all the research, and the best that can be said is that has some success when used with other medicines and methods. No research whatsoever has shown it has preventive capability.

                I provided an extensive review of most of the research and you have failed to acknowledge it.
                I'm lost. Are we agreeing about the success with the Zelenko protocol for treating those with coronavirus? What is the difference between preventative and immediate treatment upon symptoms of the coronavirus? You may be splitting hairs here.

                The review must have been so impressive that no one remembers the great stuff you found. Are you talking about medpage website again? You have not yet mentioned any specific study for examination so it is not clear what you are highlighting from any studies. The benefit of the c19study.com is that the treatment studies are listed out. But you have not really debated on anything specific ... you maybe just say you like some article that doesn't give much detail. You have not given any thing specific to respond to.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                  I'm lost. Are we agreeing about the success with the Zelenko protocol for treating those with coronavirus? What is the difference between preventative and immediate treatment upon symptoms of the coronavirus? You may be splitting hairs here.
                  Clear and specific difference. Preventive or prophilactic treatment ranslates into ABSOLUTELY NO INFECTION. The treatment protocal was for those tested as infected. It still remains that Zelenko's research lacks the medical protocal that later studies had, and all of them need to considered when evaluating the results as my reference did.

                  The review must have been so impressive that no one remembers the great stuff you found. Are you talking about medpage website again? You have not yet mentioned any specific study for examination so it is not clear what you are highlighting from any studies. The benefit of the c19study.com is that the treatment studies are listed out. But you have not really debated on anything specific ... you maybe just say you like some article that doesn't give much detail. You have not given any thing specific to respond to.
                  No problem you can still reference it at any time you wish to refer to it.. The problem is you are avoiding it. No one else has denied reading it, nor objected to the content. It was comprehensive in the references it provided.

                  I thought it would be appropriate here to repost this, because of some posting incomplete and misleading research, and name droping without the details to support their agenda.

                  Risch is a competent scientis, and yes there have been some positive results of using HCQ in combination with azithromycin.The article goes over the different research, and the limited positive results. It empasises that most of the previous reasearch is without control and good randomized studies. Severual research published with a good research design showed decidedly negative results,

                  Name droping without the details is not an adegaute response,


                  Source: https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/87844



                  In the Newsweek editorial and in the later journal submission, both of which were published following three highly publicized randomized trials that reported no benefit from HCQ, Risch did not address or even acknowledge them.

                  In a statement posted on Yale's website, Sten Vermund, MD, PhD, dean of the Yale School of Public Health, distanced himself from Risch's papers.

                  "My role as Dean is not to suppress the work of the faculty, but rather, to support the academic freedom of our faculty, whether it is in the mainstream of thinking or is contrarian," Vermund wrote.

                  "Yale-affiliated physicians used HCQ early in the response to COVID-19, but it is only used rarely at present due to evidence that it is ineffective and potentially risky."

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  I can provide specific references to the research cited in this article if you need, and cannot look them up yourself.
                  Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-04-2020, 06:41 PM.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    Clear and specific difference. Preventive or prophilactic treatment ranslates into ABSOLUTELY NO INFECTION. The treatment protocal was for those tested as infected. It still remains that Zelenko's research lacks the medical protocal that later studies had, and all of them need to considered when evaluating the results as my reference did.



                    No problem you can still reference it at any time you wish to refer to it.. The problem is you are avoiding it. No one else has denied reading it, nor objected to the content. It was comprehensive in the references it provided.

                    I thought it would be appropriate here to repost this, because of some posting incomplete and misleading research, and name droping without the details to support their agenda.

                    Risch is a competent scientis, and yes there have been some positive results of using HCQ in combination with azithromycin.The article goes over the different research, and the limited positive results. It empasises that most of the previous reasearch is without control and good randomized studies. Severual research published with a good research design showed decidedly negative results,

                    Name droping without the details is not an adegaute response,


                    Source: https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/87844



                    In the Newsweek editorial and in the later journal submission, both of which were published following three highly publicized randomized trials that reported no benefit from HCQ, Risch did not address or even acknowledge them.

                    In a statement posted on Yale's website, Sten Vermund, MD, PhD, dean of the Yale School of Public Health, distanced himself from Risch's papers.

                    "My role as Dean is not to suppress the work of the faculty, but rather, to support the academic freedom of our faculty, whether it is in the mainstream of thinking or is contrarian," Vermund wrote.

                    "Yale-affiliated physicians used HCQ early in the response to COVID-19, but it is only used rarely at present due to evidence that it is ineffective and potentially risky."

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    I can provide specific references to the research cited in this article if you need, and cannot look them up yourself.
                    Funny that you complain about name dropping and then you drop Vermund's name with the inconsequential statement about Risch -- an opinion statement or a vague suggestion that there are studies about HCQ suddenly becoming risky after 60 years or so. I'll probably go ahead and check out the rest of what is said in case I missed something.

                    A randomized double-blind study is not absolutely required but still is better -- when testing the proper protocol. So far, though, we have not seen the proper protocol being tested in these sort of studies.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                      Funny that you complain about name dropping and then you drop Vermund's name with the inconsequential statement about Risch -- an opinion statement or a vague suggestion that there are studies about HCQ suddenly becoming risky after 60 years or so. I'll probably go ahead and check out the rest of what is said in case I missed something.

                      A randomized double-blind study is not absolutely required but still is better -- when testing the proper protocol. So far, though, we have not seen the proper protocol being tested in these sort of studies.
                      No name droping for name droping's sack. I refered to all the research, and when more is availble I will refer to it. The consensus is that HCQ has some benifit when used in combination with other drugs andtreatments, noit is not a significant cure, and again not there is no research that it is a preventative drug.

                      Again HCQ is well known and used internationally, and again with limited positive results.
                      Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-04-2020, 09:03 PM.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • The USA is still leading the world with an average of well over 1,000 fatalities per day for two weeks.

                        . . . and Donald Trump claims the pandemic is 'receding' and 'under control.'
                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-06-2020, 06:32 AM.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          The USA is still leading the world with an average of well over 1,000 fatalities per day for two weeks.

                          . . . and Donald Trump claims the pandemic is 'receding' and 'under control.'
                          Technically Donald Trump is correct in terms of the fact the current wave is receding. However, it is far from 'under control'. And the thanks goes to nearly universal mask mandates which he irrationally fought for over 4 months but now has ultimately caved to.

                          Fortunately we are seeing not only a significant downturn in daily case count for the past 3 weeks, but what looks like a turn in the daily deaths. Keeping in mind we are still ABOVE the previous peak in daily case count.

                          Further proof of the effectiveness of mask wearing (that is the only significant change - the almost universal adoption of mask mandates).

                          If this decline in death count persists then it looks like the peak average will be slightly lower than I anticipated, around 1200 per day (7 day average) vs 14 to 1500 per day (3 day moving average peaked at over 1400), and a week earlier, which means that the correlation of 2 to 3 weeks diagnosis to outcome did not change, but rather the overall mortality has in fact decreased relative to the number of diagnosed cases. This was expected per the following, but difficult to determine the actual effect ahead of time.

                          1) lower average age in the demographic (a combination of better isolation of older/vulnerable population and decreased vigilance by the younger population wrt summer activities)
                          2) better treatments
                          3) increased testing


                          What we have then is a current measured mortality/diagnosis of somewhere between 1.5 and 1.9% (we still don't have a good handle on the asymptomatic percentage).

                          I hope there is now no longer any reasonable debate wrt mask wearing. Though it appears many are still annoyed by it and aggravated they've been shown once again that science trumps Trump.

                          Daily Cases US 08062020.jpg

                          Daily Deaths US 08062020.jpg
                          Last edited by oxmixmudd; 08-06-2020, 08:48 AM.
                          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                            Technically Donald Trump is correct in terms of the fact the current wave is receding. However, it is far from 'under control'. And the thanks goes to nearly universal mask mandates which he irrationally fought for over 4 months but now has ultimately caved to.
                            Technically I agree, as I predicted before a June surge, much greater than I predicted, and a 'long torchorous slow decline of the pamdemic,' but it is a false claim from the perspective of Trump's view of the pandemic from the beginning. The 'receding' needs more explanation to be meaningful. Because of the lack of uniform organized effort and vaccines I believe that the pandemic is following its natural path in relation to the host,us.

                            Fortunately we are seeing not only a significant downturn in daily case count for the past 3 weeks, but what looks like a turn in the daily deaths. Keeping in mind we are still ABOVE the previous peak in daily case count.

                            Further proof of the effectiveness of mask wearing (that is the only significant change - the almost universal adoption of mask mandates).
                            I believe in these methods, but a lack of cooperation in large percent of the population and conflicting leadership at the national, state, and local governments. Wide spread church services, and gatherings of youth are still the rule. This will insure the COVID-19 will pop up here and there like Wack-a-Mole.

                            I do not buy the 'proof,' and still believe that the natural path of the COVID-19 pandemic still determines when this passes. The movement of COVID-19 into areas and populations of lower density and previously not impacted is part of the reason for the slow torturous decline. Also the number of new cases, hospitalizations will decline naturally as it moves into less populated redions. The lack of vaccines further demonstrates the natural path coronavirus is in control as in previous pandemics. People cannot seem the fact that for the most part we are not in control. With no vaccines the best we can do is decrease the fatalities with masks/distancing and medical tecnology.

                            If this decline in death count persists then it looks like the peak average will be slightly lower than I anticipated, around 1200 per day (7 day average) vs 14 to 1500 per day (3 day moving average peaked at over 1400), and a week earlier, which means that the correlation of 2 to 3 weeks diagnosis to outcome did not change, but rather the overall mortality has in fact decreased relative to the number of diagnosed cases. This was expected per the following, but difficult to determine the actual effect ahead of time.

                            1) lower average age in the demographic (a combination of better isolation of older/vulnerable population and decreased vigilance by the younger population wrt summer activities)
                            2) better treatments
                            3) increased testing


                            What we have then is a current measured mortality/diagnosis of somewhere between 1.5 and 1.9% (we still don't have a good handle on the asymptomatic percentage).

                            I hope there is now no longer any reasonable debate wrt mask wearing. Though it appears many are still annoyed by it and aggravated they've been shown once again that science trump's Trump.

                            [ATTACH=CONFIG]47433[/ATTACH]

                            [ATTACH=CONFIG]47434[/ATTACH]
                            I believe your a little too optimistic concerning our efforts, which lack leadership and consistency, in 'controling' the pandemic. If it persists a lower intensity or returns again our technology and vaccines 'may' reduce the infection, but at present the reality is we are not doing much of anything consistent to actually change natural course of the pandemic as with all pandemics in the past. The very high percentage of assymptomatic and weakly infected individuals criple our efforts, like one person in a church service infecting 91+.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                              Technically Donald Trump is correct in terms of the fact the current wave is receding. However, it is far from 'under control'. And the thanks goes to nearly universal mask mandates which he irrationally fought for over 4 months but now has ultimately caved to.
                              The malevolence of that resistance cannot be overstated. Neither can the resultant virtue signaling by connecting mask wearing with, of all things, PATRIOTISM:

                              trumpmask.jpg

                              Comment


                              • I think later studies will show a higher death rate among Dems since they are unwilling to take the cure simply because Trump endorsed it. At least this gives a brighter future, except for the Dem relatives that we lost to coronavirus.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                103 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                301 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                109 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                196 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                357 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X