Originally posted by NorrinRadd
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
We've got a new drug? (for COVID!)
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
I don't know of any legitimate studies meeting the objective requirements I mention above that show clear benefits from ivermectin. howvever, there are clear cases where people have found themselves in significant danger because of its side effects.
Thanks for helping me understand why you are being so easily misled on these issues. But I can see no point in debating comments based more on a personal dislike of fauci than reason.
I will help you on the studies for Ivermectin. Check out https://c19ivermectin.com/ and you can point out what is wrong with the studies. Maybe you could help me by pointing out the studies that show harmful effects of Ivermectin. I tried checking a site that was anti-Ivermectin and the links it gave did not show actual bad effects of Ivermectin.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by mikewhitney View PostI have the same question back to you. People here keep on rejecting the scientific studies on Ivermectin. It is very weird since people here like to claim they are relying on the science
Which long established protocols are you talking about? Science has been totally changed in 2020-2021. Back in 2019, Fauci said the best practices for avoiding illness was to build up your immunity through vitamin D, exercise and good eating. Since 2020, he has not said one word about that ... oh maybe that he was taking vitamin D. But his public announcements was immediately that "only the vaccine can stop this." Why did he assume that back in April or May of 2020, when we had only seen a couple months of this?
Thanks for helping me understand why you are being so easily misled on these issues. But I can see no point in debating comments based more on a personal dislike of fauci than reason.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
Yeah, I'd meant to inquire about what treatments they were given, though perhaps in slightly less harsh terms.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
Everyone has his own opinion as to what constitutes a "legitimate study," a "charlatan," and a "legitimate scientist."
Five years ago, Drs. Stephen Smith, Harvey Risch, Marty Makary, Jay Bhattacharya, Ramin Oskoui, Qanta Ahmed, and probably even Peter McCullough would have been almost universally recognized as "legitimate" scientists or medical experts. Now, all of them are considered charlatans in one way or another for preaching counter-Covid-cult heresies.
Smith, Risch, Oskoui, Ahmed, and McCullough all cited their good clinical results with HCQ. Lord Farkwad gave a weak little approval, as long as it was only used in situations where it was almost guaranteed to fail. Then he gushed over Remdesivir, which turned out to be about as useful as a coffee enema.
There are currently NO medications that have truly been "subjected to rigorous testing and evaluations" with specific regard to Covid, thanks largely to the ill-advised "Operation Warp Speed."
The names on the authors list is not one of those objective standards. Even good scientists are subject to bias, and their work subject to rejection if they don't adhere to those standards.
These are- of course- general comments that don't address the specifics that drive your opinions.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
Undoubtedly we all see things filtered through the lenses of our own experiences.
I interpret your post to mean that you personally know 3 people, all evangelical Christians, who were unvaxed and died of Covid.
I personally know zero people who have died of Covid. The only people I personally know who were even diagnosed with Covid were both vaxed; they got "breakthrough" cases, both fairly mild. One was my best friend's nephew, age 40, heavy-set, no relevant preexisting conditions (he's epileptic), Pentecostal. The other was my cousin, age 30, slim, no preexisting conditions, Lutheran.
I've previously told about my best friend who just this past June resigned from her job after 21 years rather than take the jab. She's 60, a smoker, but otherwise in great shape. She had worked as a caregiver in a home for mentally challenged men. While there, she spent a few weeks working literally hands-on with multiple Covid-positive people, and she never did test positive herself.
And BTW, I'm sure you know it is not just "evangelical Christians," but blacks, browns, and Ph.D.s
But assuming you accept the diagnosis of death due to covid, and you actually know no-one whose death was diagnosed as a consequence of a covid infection, all that means is that you are unable to see firsthand the consequence of the misinformation that has driven your outlook on these things.
Unfortunately I have.
My statements also should not be taken as a comprehensive assessment of those whose life expectancy is compromised by covid misinformation. It simply focuses in on one specific group that has been severely impacted by it and that I am strongly connected to - evangelicals.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostSome potentially positive news from Merck, which partnered with a small biotech to develop and trial a drug that targets SARS-CoV-2 — the drug was originally discovered by a non-profit associated with Emory University. The drug, which has the catchy name Molnupiravir, is a chemical relative of the RNA bases that comprise the genome of SARS-CoV-2, and apparently interferes with the process of making new copies of the viral genome. (Details on its mechanism are available if you're curious.)
The drug had been in a phase 3 trial. The details of those are normally blinded until certain endpoints are reached (ie, > some number of patients reach 2 months after treatment or something similar). But they often have interim analysis points, where the data are given to people not involved in the trial to check and see if either the drug is clearly working, or clearly causing problems. In this case, the interim analysis fell on the "clearly working" side. The population were people with mild to moderate COVID-19, but at least one comorbidity that put them at risk of progressing to severe disease.
Of 775 patients who had either taken the drug or placebo, 14% of those on the placebo were either hospitalized or died. In contrast, 7.3% of those receiving the drug did. That includes 8 deaths among those receiving placebo, and none in the treatment group.
Given those results, the trial was halted (standard procedure is to immediately give the placebo group the drug). Merck plans to apply for an Emergency Use Authorization from the FDA as soon as possible.
This is very good news. It's clear that a number of countries have a substantial population that is refusing to get vaccinated, and in the US, this is causing a lot of strain on the hospitals in several states. Anything that lowers the rate of hospitalization will be a big help both to those infected, and to anyone who needs medical care for other reasons.
Beyond that, the whole public health response to this has been to rely on a combination of many layers of imperfect protections. The vaccines are great, but still allow breakthrough infections. But combined with masks and social distancing, the risks become very low. Now, we can apparently add a treatment that limits the impact of any residual breakthrough infections - not perfectly, but again, good enough to lower the overall risk further still. The more things like this we get, the better for society as a whole.
No word yet on whether it's Bill Gates or George Soros that's got microchips in this one...
- 1 like
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
There was some site mentioning that Pfizer was going to be selling a pill that is basically just Ivermectin.
- 1 like
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
My question is why are so many willing to accept conclusions contrary to what the legitimate studies have shown and take more risk based on unproven anecdotes than with medications that have been subjected to rigorous testing and evaluations?
Why is it that the legitimate scientists following long established protocols feel more likely to you to be charlatans than those making unsubstantiated claims on YouTube channels?
Five years ago, Drs. Stephen Smith, Harvey Risch, Marty Makary, Jay Bhattacharya, Ramin Oskoui, Qanta Ahmed, and probably even Peter McCullough would have been almost universally recognized as "legitimate" scientists or medical experts. Now, all of them are considered charlatans in one way or another for preaching counter-Covid-cult heresies.
Smith, Risch, Oskoui, Ahmed, and McCullough all cited their good clinical results with HCQ. Lord Farkwad gave a weak little approval, as long as it was only used in situations where it was almost guaranteed to fail. Then he gushed over Remdesivir, which turned out to be about as useful as a coffee enema.
There are currently NO medications that have truly been "subjected to rigorous testing and evaluations" with specific regard to Covid, thanks largely to the ill-advised "Operation Warp Speed."
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
My question always is -- did these people die because the hospital would not use Ivermectin or even the expensive monoclonal antibodies? If they have died without getting such treatments, the doctors and hospitals are guilty of malpractice if not pure murder.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
We have watched at 3 friends that were convinced by the same misinformation that drives your reasons to avoid the vaccine die in the last 3 months from covid. It is just so heartbreaking to see the cost of it, to see how prevalent it is among our Christian friends, and how unnecessary their deaths have been, and how powerless we have been to break through whatever it is that makes these ideas attractive to evangelical Christians.
I interpret your post to mean that you personally know 3 people, all evangelical Christians, who were unvaxed and died of Covid.
I personally know zero people who have died of Covid. The only people I personally know who were even diagnosed with Covid were both vaxed; they got "breakthrough" cases, both fairly mild. One was my best friend's nephew, age 40, heavy-set, no relevant preexisting conditions (he's epileptic), Pentecostal. The other was my cousin, age 30, slim, no preexisting conditions, Lutheran.
I've previously told about my best friend who just this past June resigned from her job after 21 years rather than take the jab. She's 60, a smoker, but otherwise in great shape. She had worked as a caregiver in a home for mentally challenged men. While there, she spent a few weeks working literally hands-on with multiple Covid-positive people, and she never did test positive herself.
And BTW, I'm sure you know it is not just "evangelical Christians," but blacks, browns, and Ph.D.s
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
(Though why you're posting in a science forum, which is ostensibly about evidence, i'm not sure.)
But even aside from that, it would never have remotely occurred to me to interpret "Science" so strictly on an Internet discussion board, especially since the subforum rules don't suggest such.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
My question is why are so many willing to accept conclusions contrary to what the legitimate studies have shown and take more risk based on unproven anecdotes than with medications that have been subjected to rigorous testing and evaluations?
Why is it that the legitimate scientists following long established protocols feel more likely to you to be charlatans than those making unsubstantiated claims on YouTube channels?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
My question always is -- did these people die because the hospital would not use Ivermectin or even the expensive monoclonal antibodies? If they have died without getting such treatments, the doctors and hospitals are guilty of malpractice if not pure murder.
Why is it that the legitimate scientists following long established protocols feel more likely to you to be charlatans than those making unsubstantiated claims on YouTube channels?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
And nobody's ignoring it - it was undoubtedly helpful in identifying the rare and treatable side effects that we've identified so far. But it's also just a collection of anecdotes - things that people choose to report that happen within a few months of vaccination. There's a lot of unrelated stuff in there, and probably more than usual, since this is the largest vaccine campaign that the US has seen in decades.
And the VAERS trends are that people under report to it. There are 15,000 deaths reported to VAERS... If this is under reported, as evidenced by the whistleblower counts (on 18% of the US population), the 50k number is the lowest number. If there are many accidental reporting (the coroner mistook them for dead) combined with the under-reporting, we still would says VAERS is a start to representing the number of deaths at 15k.
I doubt that autopsies were able to be done on even a fraction of those deaths entered into VAERS. It seems also that mostly doctors and staff will report to VAERS. Then there are plenty of accounts where doctors have been dissuaded from entering deaths and injuries into VAERS. Please don't be so flippant about the statistics coming out here. I think yours is a trusted mind here and thus deserves more study on your part on these issues. Check the evidence ... the testimonies. Not every doctor who points out the deaths is wrong about their findings.
Leave a comment:
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by rogue06, 05-03-2024, 02:47 PM
|
0 responses
6 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
05-03-2024, 02:47 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 05-03-2024, 12:33 PM
|
1 response
16 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
05-03-2024, 01:14 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-27-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
12 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-27-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by shunyadragon, 04-26-2024, 10:10 PM
|
5 responses
23 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
04-28-2024, 08:10 AM
|
||
Started by shunyadragon, 04-25-2024, 08:37 PM
|
2 responses
12 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
04-25-2024, 10:21 PM
|
Leave a comment: