Announcement

Collapse

Health Science 101 Guidelines

Greetings! Welcome to Health Science.

Here's where we talk about the latest fad diets, the advantages of vegetarianism, the joy of exercise and good health. Like everywhere else at Tweb our decorum rules apply.

This is a place to exchange ideas and network with other health conscience folks, this isn't a forum for heated debate.
See more
See less

Height of Medical Incompetence

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

  • Height of Medical Incompetence

    Eventually something should trigger some logic in people's minds on this covid fiasco.
    Source: https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/08/18/california-covid-19-hospitalizations-cases-top-2020-summer-surge/


    Cases, deaths


    For a stretch of July 2020, more than 10,000 Californians per day were testing positive for COVID-19, according to state data.

    The numbers have been back over 10,000 since Aug. 1 and surpassed the July peak for at least a few days this month.

    The state data uses the date people got tested or started feeling sick, not when their positive test made it into the official statistics. That means recent days’ numbers will keep rising as more testing information comes in, which makes it hard to know if the same slowdown seen in hospitalization numbers is showing up in the case data as well.

    Deaths tend to take even longer than cases to make it into official statistics, so recent numbers are likely to be incomplete. But as of Tuesday, the state was aware of about two dozen Californians dying from COVID-19 per day in recent weeks. That’s more than double the number from the low point in June, but a far cry from the 100 to 150 last summer and about 700 per day in the deadliest stretch of January.

    © Copyright Original Source



    This is the height of incompetence of the medical system. They have had over a year to figure out quick and effective treatments but have totally failed. After these 17 months, the early treatment of covid-19 patients should be so easy that they never make it to ICU (if even to the hospital at all). If hospitals even tried the proven protocols with Ivermectin, Vitamin D or the lackluster bamlanivimab (monoclonal antibodies ), the hospital beds would be emptied out or would just be treating the 3 or more comorbidities which brought the patients into the hospitals in the first place.

    This rise in hospitalization is even with 50% or more of the susceptible people getting the shots. So this is claimed to be a doubling of hospitalizations for those unvaxxed. This hardly seems likely unless you have found that all the unvaxxed people you know are in the hospitals now. Anyhow, just figure out the math. I figure we have new unverified science that has come in during the last 17 months and we also have new math that makes these numbers possible.

    Now in 2021 we shall see a great rise in positive sars-cov2 test results since all un-shot kids (at least in California) will have to be tested every two weeks. If they make up 25% of the california population, then there will be 5 million kids tested 7 times this year -- 35 million tests. This certainly will get the desired rise in positive tests that it is designed to obtain.



  • #2
    Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
    Eventually something should trigger some logic in people's minds on this covid fiasco.
    Source: https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/08/18/california-covid-19-hospitalizations-cases-top-2020-summer-surge/


    Cases, deaths


    For a stretch of July 2020, more than 10,000 Californians per day were testing positive for COVID-19, according to state data.

    The numbers have been back over 10,000 since Aug. 1 and surpassed the July peak for at least a few days this month.

    The state data uses the date people got tested or started feeling sick, not when their positive test made it into the official statistics. That means recent days’ numbers will keep rising as more testing information comes in, which makes it hard to know if the same slowdown seen in hospitalization numbers is showing up in the case data as well.

    Deaths tend to take even longer than cases to make it into official statistics, so recent numbers are likely to be incomplete. But as of Tuesday, the state was aware of about two dozen Californians dying from COVID-19 per day in recent weeks. That’s more than double the number from the low point in June, but a far cry from the 100 to 150 last summer and about 700 per day in the deadliest stretch of January.

    © Copyright Original Source



    This is the height of incompetence of the medical system. They have had over a year to figure out quick and effective treatments but have totally failed. After these 17 months, the early treatment of covid-19 patients should be so easy that they never make it to ICU (if even to the hospital at all). If hospitals even tried the proven protocols with Ivermectin, Vitamin D or the lackluster bamlanivimab (monoclonal antibodies ), the hospital beds would be emptied out or would just be treating the 3 or more comorbidities which brought the patients into the hospitals in the first place.
    Or... the treatments that you think are so effective, really aren't.

    This rise in hospitalization is even with 50% or more of the susceptible people getting the shots. So this is claimed to be a doubling of hospitalizations for those unvaxxed. This hardly seems likely unless you have found that all the unvaxxed people you know are in the hospitals now. Anyhow, just figure out the math. I figure we have new unverified science that has come in during the last 17 months and we also have new math that makes these numbers possible.
    In LA County, there are currently about 1 in 5700 people in the hospital with covid-19 right now, and about 1570 out of 5700 are completely unvaxxed. I don't know what kind of math you are using, but that tells me that not many of the unvaxxed people I know (actually, I can't think of any) would be in the hospital.

    Now in 2021 we shall see a great rise in positive sars-cov2 test results since all un-shot kids (at least in California) will have to be tested every two weeks.
    I can't find any evidence of that. Are you sure you aren't mixing up teachers and staff with students?

    If they make up 25% of the california population, then there will be 5 million kids tested 7 times this year -- 35 million tests. This certainly will get the desired rise in positive tests that it is designed to obtain.
    That's a pretty paranoid way to look at it.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Stoic View Post
      Or... the treatments that you think are so effective, really aren't.

      Oh shoot. If we can't rely on science, then why even bother participating in the covid-shot experiment/trials?

      Why would we trust repeatable findings that things like Ivermectin and Vitamin D treatments are effective? That would be like expecting the sun to "rise" in the sky each day.

      You certainly surprise me when you are so quick to reject science. Usually the ungodly like to place their hope in the sciences. I still wonder if any of the science-deniers will point out fatal flaws in the myriad of studies showing effective treatments. I really find it hard to conceive that people would rather get deathly ill and be taken to the hospital rather than try simple and effective treatments to stop the illness early on.



      In LA County, there are currently about 1 in 5700 people in the hospital with covid-19 right now, and about 1570 out of 5700 are completely unvaxxed. I don't know what kind of math you are using, but that tells me that not many of the unvaxxed people I know (actually, I can't think of any) would be in the hospital.

      I can't find any evidence of that. Are you sure you aren't mixing up teachers and staff with students?

      Whew. I heard it right. Mind you, this is the los angeles district. There probably are other major cities doing this. I

      Source: https://achieve.lausd.net/covidtesting


      Los Angeles Unified is providing COVID testing for all students and staff.

      All students and employees, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, returning for in-person instruction must participate in baseline and ongoing weekly COVID testing. This is in accordance with the most recent guidance from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. Baseline testing begins on Monday, August 2.

      © Copyright Original Source




      That's a pretty paranoid way to look at it.
      You may have to brush up on math again. the more people that take the covid tests, the more people are reported as having sars-cov2. It hardly takes any skill to recognize that outcome
      Last edited by mikewhitney; 08-19-2021, 02:16 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
        Oh shoot. If we can't rely on science, then why even bother participating in the covid-shot experiment/trials?

        Why would we trust repeatable findings that things like Ivermectin and Vitamin D treatments are effective? That would be like expecting the sun to "rise" in the sky each day.

        You certainly surprise me when you are so quick to reject science. Usually the ungodly like to place their hope in the sciences. I still wonder if any of the science-deniers will point out fatal flaws in the myriad of studies showing effective treatments. I really find it hard to conceive that people would rather get deathly ill and be taken to the hospital rather than try simple and effective treatments to stop the illness early on.
        You are right. We should trust the science.

        https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34181716/


        Whew. I heard it right. Mind you, this is the los angeles district. There probably are other major cities doing this. I

        Source: https://achieve.lausd.net/covidtesting


        Los Angeles Unified is providing COVID testing for all students and staff.

        All students and employees, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, returning for in-person instruction must participate in baseline and ongoing weekly COVID testing. This is in accordance with the most recent guidance from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. Baseline testing begins on Monday, August 2.

        © Copyright Original Source

        Your link says they will be testing all students, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, every week. That's about 9 million tests this year. Would you like to predict what percentage of them will be positive?

        You may have to brush up on math again. the more people that take the covid tests, the more people are reported as having sars-cov2. It hardly takes any skill to recognize that outcome
        Most people who take covid tests do so because they have been exposed, or because they have symptoms. So it stands to reason that the more people who are tested, the more are reported as having sars-cov-2.

        It's also true that the less you test people, the fewer cases you find. Even the idiotic former president realized that. But it doesn't mean quite what you think it means.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Stoic View Post

          You are right. We should trust the science.

          https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34181716/



          Finally, someone tries to respond with half of the science. Part of the science is doing a study (or in this case doing a review of other studies) and the other half is the interaction with the scientific community I'm not going to do much analysis of it, but analysis has been done by others who found your metaanalysis to be flawed. You have found a good example of the incompetence.

          Source: https://c19ivermectin.com


          Severely flawed meta analysis. An open letter signed by 40 physicians detailing errors and flaws, and requesting retraction, can be found at [1]. See also [2].

          The authors state that they have no conflicts of interest on medRxiv, however Dr. Pasupuleti’s affiliation is Cello Health, whose website [3] says that they provide services such as “brand and portfolio commercial strategy for biotech and pharma”, and that their clients are "24 of the top 25 pharmaceutical companies”.

          Authors cherry-pick to include only 4 studies reporting non-zero mortality and they claim a mortality RR of 1.11 [0.16-7.65]. However, they reported incorrect values for Niaee et al., claiming an RR of 6.51 [2.18-19.45]. The correct RR for Niaee et al. is 0.18 [0.06-0.55] (as below). After correction, their cherry-picked studies show >60% mortality reduction.

          Similarly, for viral clearance and NCT04392713, they report 20/41 treatment, 18/45 control, whereas the correct day 7 clearance numbers are 37/41 and 20/45 (sum of clearance @72hrs and @7 days), or 17/41 and 2/45 @72 hrs.

          The duration of hospital stay for Niaee et al. is also incorrectly reported, showing a lower duration for the control group.

          All of the errors are in one direction - incorrectly reporting lower than actual efficacy for ivermectin. Authors claim to include all RCTs excluding prophylaxis, however they only include 10 of the 24 non-prophylaxis RCTs (28 including prophylaxis). Authors actually reference meta analyses that do include the missing RCTs, so they should be aware of the missing RCTs.

          The PubMed search strategy provided is syntactically incorrect.

          © Copyright Original Source



          This analysis of your paper shows some of the errors. One of those is a swapping of the control group and the Ivermectin group data.
          Source: https://pubpeer.com/publications/955418F3D4D39742CFFA8C1B023AA3


          image-1621970455047.png

          © Copyright Original Source



          I'm not sure why you selected one of the worst studies for your argument. However, it was good to highlight not only this sample of a bad study but also the incompetence of science that is happening among those pushing these experimental shots.



          Most people who take covid tests do so because they have been exposed, or because they have symptoms. So it stands to reason that the more people who are tested, the more are reported as having sars-cov-2.

          It's also true that the less you test people, the fewer cases you find. Even the idiotic former president realized that. But it doesn't mean quite what you think it means.
          You are guessing here. Many people have to take tests for work. I certainly expect people are doing the tests out of general fear rather than specific "contacts" with others.

          You have also confirmed what i said. It is a truism that the more tests done, the more positive cases found. Then this is reported as a high number of "cases" (using the covid-19 redefinition of "cases"). The number of cases has continually been used to generate irrational fear. These high numbers sound scary but have no scientific relevance -- there is no comparison to previous outbreaks -- there is no sampling of society to see if these numbers identify proportions of people within a community. You are smart enough to figure that out at some point in time. But right now, the irrationality prevails. This is promulgated by the incompetence in the sciences.





          Comment


          • #6
            I don't pretend that I'm qualified to decide which studies are worth paying attention to, and which ones should be ignored.

            I'm not going to pretend that you are qualified, either, but I'm not going to argue about it.

            I'm just going to leave this here in case anyone comes along and is fooled into thinking you know what you're talking about.

            Source: https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678


            ... In this article, we appraise and debate about the available evidence regarding the role of ivermectin for COVID-19.

            ...

            ​​​​​​An important controversial point to consider in any rationale is the 5 M required concentration to reach the anti-SARS-CoV-2 action of ivermectin observed in vitro, which is much higher than 0.28 M, the maximum reported plasma concentration achieved in vivo with a dose of approximately 1700 g/kg (about nine times the FDA-approved dosification). In this sense, basic fundamentals for assessing ivermectin in COVID-19 at a clinical level appear to be insufficient. Among other reasons, we believe this might have led WHO to exclude ivermectin from its Solidarity Trial for repurposed drugs for COVID-19, which raises questions about the pertinence of conducting clinical studies on ivermectin.

            ...

            ​​​​​​A recently published systematic review and network meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for COVID-19 in hospitalised patients. It included 110 studies (78 published and 38 unpublished) with 40 randomised clinical trials and 70 observational studies. Based on observational data, they found that high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin, ivermectin and tocilizumab were associated with reduced mortality rate in critically ill patients. None of the analysed drugs was significantly associated with increased non-cardiac serious adverse events compared with standard care, but the overall certainty of the evidence was very low in all outcomes and reduced the ability for recommendation.

            Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. Prospective registration of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis protocols is a key feature for providing transparency in the review process and ensuring protection against reporting biases, by revealing differences between the methods or outcomes reported in the published review and those planned in the registered protocol. These websites show pooled estimates suggesting significant benefits with ivermectin, which has resulted in confusion for clinicians, patients and even decision-makers. This is usually a problem when performing meta-analyses which are not based in rigorous systematic reviews, often leading to spread spurious or fallacious findings.

            Concluding, research related to ivermectin in COVID-19 has serious methodological limitations resulting in very low certainty of the evidence, and continues to grow. The use of ivermectin, among others repurposed drugs for prophylaxis or treatment for COVID-19, should be done based on trustable evidence, without conflicts of interest, with proven safety and efficacy in patient-consented, ethically approved, randomised clinical trials.

            © Copyright Original Source



            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Stoic View Post
              I don't pretend that I'm qualified to decide which studies are worth paying attention to, and which ones should be ignored.

              I'm not going to pretend that you are qualified, either, but I'm not going to argue about it.

              I'm just going to leave this here in case anyone comes along and is fooled into thinking you know what you're talking about.

              Source: https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678


              ... In this article, we appraise and debate about the available evidence regarding the role of ivermectin for COVID-19.

              ...

              ​​​​​​An important controversial point to consider in any rationale is the 5 M required concentration to reach the anti-SARS-CoV-2 action of ivermectin observed in vitro, which is much higher than 0.28 M, the maximum reported plasma concentration achieved in vivo with a dose of approximately 1700 g/kg (about nine times the FDA-approved dosification). In this sense, basic fundamentals for assessing ivermectin in COVID-19 at a clinical level appear to be insufficient. Among other reasons, we believe this might have led WHO to exclude ivermectin from its Solidarity Trial for repurposed drugs for COVID-19, which raises questions about the pertinence of conducting clinical studies on ivermectin.

              ...

              ​​​​​​A recently published systematic review and network meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for COVID-19 in hospitalised patients. It included 110 studies (78 published and 38 unpublished) with 40 randomised clinical trials and 70 observational studies. Based on observational data, they found that high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin, ivermectin and tocilizumab were associated with reduced mortality rate in critically ill patients. None of the analysed drugs was significantly associated with increased non-cardiac serious adverse events compared with standard care, but the overall certainty of the evidence was very low in all outcomes and reduced the ability for recommendation.

              Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. Prospective registration of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis protocols is a key feature for providing transparency in the review process and ensuring protection against reporting biases, by revealing differences between the methods or outcomes reported in the published review and those planned in the registered protocol. These websites show pooled estimates suggesting significant benefits with ivermectin, which has resulted in confusion for clinicians, patients and even decision-makers. This is usually a problem when performing meta-analyses which are not based in rigorous systematic reviews, often leading to spread spurious or fallacious findings.

              Concluding, research related to ivermectin in COVID-19 has serious methodological limitations resulting in very low certainty of the evidence, and continues to grow. The use of ivermectin, among others repurposed drugs for prophylaxis or treatment for COVID-19, should be done based on trustable evidence, without conflicts of interest, with proven safety and efficacy in patient-consented, ethically approved, randomised clinical trials.

              © Copyright Original Source


              You are still pretending Stoic. Therefore, it behooves people to take this article with a grain of salt until something scientifically sufficient can be offered.

              Probably the obvious thing missing in the bmj article is the opportunity to do their own metadata analysis -- to do the task that the article says is missing. Nor have they indicated whether the uncertainties may actually favor higher effectiveness of Ivermectin in saving lives.

              In the C19ivermectin.com site, maybe the certainty of the summary results are missing. One weakness may be through the inclusion of bad studies that led to more deaths than should have happened. But it would help if these BMJ opinions were combined with an analysis. Furthermore, who cares one iota whether WHO recommends use of Ivermectin. It's role should be no more than a weak information source that they think might be useful. The most important thing is that Ivermectin and Vitamin D, among many other treatments, are not harmful and should be undertaken as a step by medical doctors, with proper precautions, to keep people out of the severe levels of disease that puts people into the hospitals and then killed on the ventilators. Would you rather take aspirin or immediately go into brain surgery as a cure for a headache?

              The lesson for the BMJ opionators is that they should be doers of the studies, not mere judges of those who have done them. Again Stoic, you have brought up another example of the height of medical incompetence -- but this time with BMJ. Good work!

              Comment


              • #8
                Probably we are even misconstruing the reason these studies were done in the first place. They were not needed for approval of Ivermectin since the medicine has been available for umpteen years. The reason was that doctors were having success with treating their patients with it but there was political back pressure. Why was there this unusual back pressure for any medicine that a doctor uses, especially ones that were extremely effective? Usually the doctors just use what they can based on their studies and their experience. So doctors did the studies in the midst of failures especially in the New York City hospitals to save many lives. The studies were done because of that medical incompetence they saw ... and the need to get news of effective treatments out to the medical community.

                With HCQ we saw early studies that were published but then had to be pulled. The major journals (or one of them) were publishing bad studies. One Hydroxychloroquine study gave deadly doses of HCQ and for some reason had as many patients dying from HCQ as dying in the control group. So let the doctors do their jobs unhindered, especially when they see great success in the protocols they are using in these cases.

                Comment


                • #9

                  This is good. This is really good.

                  The FDA uses a couple proxy arguments to dissuade people from using Ivermectin. These are very clever.

                  The site is:
                  1. Speaking of Ivermectin obtained from farm/veterinary supplies
                  This point does have some merit. The main problem with this supply is that a person not take an unknown dose of the medicine since the Ivermectin for horses could be difficult to figure out a proper dose for people. Other than that, Ivermectin is still Ivermectin. However, it would be a significant benefit to get better informed of cautions and details if taken by people. It certainly is true that Ivermectin is safe in most situations, however the dosage I have generally heard is that people take this dosage once a week for prophylactic use.

                  2. Relatedly, speaking of overdose of Ivermectin from farm/supplies
                  There have been calls to the poison centers (if the article or Rachel Madcow) is correct. The FDA site uses this topic of overdosing on Ivermectin as a proxy argument against even getting a doctor's prescription. The simple reading of the FDA site is that you should not use Ivermectin at all.
                  Source: https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

                  • Taking large doses of this drug is dangerous and can cause serious harm.
                  • If you have a prescription for ivermectin for an FDA-approved use, get it from a legitimate source and take it exactly as prescribed.
                  • Never use medications intended for animals on yourself. Ivermectin preparations for animals are very different from those approved for humans.

                  © Copyright Original Source


                  One fallacy here also is that the doctor does not have to limit himself/herself to the FDA-approved uses. The doctor may use studies and past experience and intuition to use the approved drugs (i.e., for a certain disease) to help on any other condition. The last point may be of some concern but Ivermectin is still Ivermectin.

                  3. saying that Ivermectin is only for worms and parasitic conditions.
                  This is false. Again a doctor can use it through researched and intuitive applications. Also, the medicine has been studied as an anti-viral such as against Dengue -- see e.g., Antivirus effectiveness of ivermectin on dengue virus type 2 in Aedes albopictus https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30452439/
                  Another aspect of this is that it is possible that the same elements that make Ivermectin act against worms and parasites may functioning the same way against viruses. But it is obvious that this wording by Ms. Madcow and the FDA (especially if you see the video at the yahoo link) is to make the use of Ivermectin sounds silly and unfounded. This is emotional propaganda rather than science.

                  The basic lesson here is to trust the scientific studies (c19ivermectin.com), especially in the hands of a medical doctor who is familiar with the science. Also, recognize propaganda that uses proxy arguments in lieu of references to the scientific papers. Again, we see the medical incompetence in the treatment of covid-19 but this time it is from the FDA itself.

                  Note that this is just a statement of personal conclusions based on my research and analysis. This should not be mistaken for medical advice -- which should only come from the medical/health professionals supervising your care. Still, it may help if you point these professionals to the latest medical studies.

                  Comment

                  Related Threads

                  Collapse

                  Topics Statistics Last Post
                  Started by Cow Poke, 10-11-2021, 11:58 AM
                  8 responses
                  53 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post Sparko
                  by Sparko
                   
                  Started by Bill the Cat, 10-05-2021, 09:13 AM
                  21 responses
                  94 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post Sparko
                  by Sparko
                   
                  Started by Bill the Cat, 10-04-2021, 02:25 PM
                  2 responses
                  45 views
                  4 likes
                  Last Post Ronson
                  by Ronson
                   
                  Started by Cow Poke, 10-01-2021, 11:38 AM
                  23 responses
                  137 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post Sparko
                  by Sparko
                   
                  Started by Sparko, 10-01-2021, 07:50 AM
                  81 responses
                  299 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post eider
                  by eider
                   
                  Working...
                  X