Expected duration of the Corona virus threat?
What is the expected duration of the Corona virus threat? Not only death counts, include fear, social, technological and economic threats. And what is the mortality rate of common flu?
Hi hi hi Ge0rgI how ya doin. Hopefully it doest last long althought I don't think it hurts bots only humans. According to taser it's fake news -------- Original Message -------- On Feb 27, 2020, 7:01 AM, Georgi Guninski wrote:
What is the expected duration of the Corona virus threat?
Not only death counts, include fear, social, technological and economic threats.
And what is the mortality rate of common flu?
On 2/27/20 7:01 AM, Georgi Guninski wrote:
What is the expected duration of the Corona virus threat?
Not only death counts, include fear, social, technological and economic threats.
And what is the mortality rate of common flu?
The common flu is much more dangerous, but anti-China hybrid economic war agitprop by the media in collusion with western intelligence agencies and governments is more dangerous still. About the "Reporting" https://www.cjr.org/language_corner/covid-19-coronavirus.php
Ps. I can tell who the feds and useful fearmongering sicko idiots on this list are by their promotion of the agitprop. On 2/27/20 7:01 AM, Georgi Guninski wrote:
What is the expected duration of the Corona virus threat?
Not only death counts, include fear, social, technological and economic threats.
And what is the mortality rate of common flu?
On 27/02/2020 15:01, Georgi Guninski wrote:
What is the expected duration of the Corona virus threat?
Healthwise, best guess worst case, the dying should be over in a couple of years. Worst guess best case, a couple of months.
Not only death counts, include fear, social, technological and economic threats.
Long-term consequences could be very long-term, initially ten years or so? Think of it like 9/11 but with a lot more dying.
And what is the mortality rate of common flu?
It varies quite a lot depending on the kind of 'flu, weather etc, but for seasonal 'flu about 1 in 10,000 or 0.01% per year is about average. A twentieth of that rate for children and the young and healthy. That's for everybody, including people who don't get flu. In a year, on average, about 20% of people get 'flu. This is mainly because of vaccination - it would probably be about 65% without vaccination. The death rate for people with 'flu is about 5 in 10,000. So say 65 million cases of 'flu in the US per year, with 30,000 US deaths per year, almost entirely the old - child deaths from seasonal flu in the US are only about 150 per year. 'Flu has been given the sobriquet "the old man's friend" - on the theory that it is better dying over a week from 'flu than over months or years from cancer, Alzheimer's, COPD etc. Gives friends and family time to say goodbye, but the patient doesn't suffer much or for too long. And seasonal 'flu kills the elderly almost exclusively. Pandemic 'flu can kill at much higher rates - the 1918 pandemic had a death rate of well over 10% of the ~17% of the population who got it during the first six months of the pandemic, though death rates decreased later. This was also an all-age death spread, the fit-and-healthy died about as often as the elderly. Best data I have seen for COVID-19 mortality is from 50 in 10,000 or 0.5% for the young-and-fit to 1,500 in 10,000 or 15% for those over 75 and those with pre-existing heart disease. Diabetes and COPD are also bad co-morbidities to have, at about 10% mortality. COVID-19 seems to kill mostly the elderly, but not nearly as exclusively as 'flu. The young-and-fit are also very much at risk. This would give an overall mortality rate of about 150-200 per 10,000 or 1.5%-2%. With an estimated 65% of the US population catching COVID-19 that would be 4 million US deaths: much worse than AIDS, and potentially the worst pandemic since the Plague. What could change that? Well, that figure is for people with at least semi-decent health care. If society and health care break down (this is unlikely to happen) US mortality could reach 15 million or more. On the other hand extra-good healthcare might bring it down a bit. Coronaviruses mutate fairly rapidly, and for something like 2019-nCoV these mutations generally tend towards less lethal varieties. So you might still see a lot of sick people but with a lot fewer deaths. It is also not impossible to make a vaccine in a fairly short time - or make 10 vaccines, quickly test them for safety, then fuck the effectiveness testing and just give people the best-looking 3 or 4 safe ones. That could be done in about 3-4 months if lots of people were dying and some otherwise-sensible rules were set aside. Antiviral drugs might also work, but ignoring licensing these are expensive and slow to make and of uncertain efficacy. It took quite a while for an effective AIDS cocktail to be worked out. I don't have much hope that containment will stop the disease, but it is worth trying; if nothing else in order to slow down the spread of the infection. This gives more time for creating treatments and treatment plans, hospital preparedness, a slower case rate requires less treatment capacity and allows more treatment per patient, and so on. People might (!would!) argue the numbers in this post a little, but I think they are at least roughly correct. The COVID-19 numbers might be a bit low as it is in many cases still too early to predict the outcome. Peter Fairbrother
A WhooHoo Flu mortality chart so far. https://www.moonofalabama.org/images10/corona17-s.jpg As you can see you're more liable to get clobbered with a stray part that fell of a jetliner and certainly more liable to get killed by a stray bullet fired by an off-duty pig. https://www.moonofalabama.org/2020/02/coronavirus-globally.html Rr Ps. "Wearing a mask, unless it is a special N-95 respirator which also makes it difficult to breathe, does not prevent one from catching the virus. " Be very afraid, of the flu. Die of your fears. Leaves more air for the rest of us. On 2/28/20 2:09 PM, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
On 27/02/2020 15:01, Georgi Guninski wrote:
What is the expected duration of the Corona virus threat?
Healthwise, best guess worst case, the dying should be over in a couple of years. Worst guess best case, a couple of months.
Not only death counts, include fear, social, technological and economic threats.
Long-term consequences could be very long-term, initially ten years or so? Think of it like 9/11 but with a lot more dying.
And what is the mortality rate of common flu?
It varies quite a lot depending on the kind of 'flu, weather etc, but for seasonal 'flu about 1 in 10,000 or 0.01% per year is about average. A twentieth of that rate for children and the young and healthy. That's for everybody, including people who don't get flu.
In a year, on average, about 20% of people get 'flu. This is mainly because of vaccination - it would probably be about 65% without vaccination. The death rate for people with 'flu is about 5 in 10,000.
So say 65 million cases of 'flu in the US per year, with 30,000 US deaths per year, almost entirely the old - child deaths from seasonal flu in the US are only about 150 per year.
'Flu has been given the sobriquet "the old man's friend" - on the theory that it is better dying over a week from 'flu than over months or years from cancer, Alzheimer's, COPD etc. Gives friends and family time to say goodbye, but the patient doesn't suffer much or for too long. And seasonal 'flu kills the elderly almost exclusively.
Pandemic 'flu can kill at much higher rates - the 1918 pandemic had a death rate of well over 10% of the ~17% of the population who got it during the first six months of the pandemic, though death rates decreased later. This was also an all-age death spread, the fit-and-healthy died about as often as the elderly.
Best data I have seen for COVID-19 mortality is from 50 in 10,000 or 0.5% for the young-and-fit to 1,500 in 10,000 or 15% for those over 75 and those with pre-existing heart disease. Diabetes and COPD are also bad co-morbidities to have, at about 10% mortality.
COVID-19 seems to kill mostly the elderly, but not nearly as exclusively as 'flu. The young-and-fit are also very much at risk.
This would give an overall mortality rate of about 150-200 per 10,000 or 1.5%-2%. With an estimated 65% of the US population catching COVID-19 that would be 4 million US deaths: much worse than AIDS, and potentially the worst pandemic since the Plague.
What could change that? Well, that figure is for people with at least semi-decent health care. If society and health care break down (this is unlikely to happen) US mortality could reach 15 million or more. On the other hand extra-good healthcare might bring it down a bit.
Coronaviruses mutate fairly rapidly, and for something like 2019-nCoV these mutations generally tend towards less lethal varieties. So you might still see a lot of sick people but with a lot fewer deaths.
It is also not impossible to make a vaccine in a fairly short time - or make 10 vaccines, quickly test them for safety, then fuck the effectiveness testing and just give people the best-looking 3 or 4 safe ones. That could be done in about 3-4 months if lots of people were dying and some otherwise-sensible rules were set aside.
Antiviral drugs might also work, but ignoring licensing these are expensive and slow to make and of uncertain efficacy. It took quite a while for an effective AIDS cocktail to be worked out.
I don't have much hope that containment will stop the disease, but it is worth trying; if nothing else in order to slow down the spread of the infection. This gives more time for creating treatments and treatment plans, hospital preparedness, a slower case rate requires less treatment capacity and allows more treatment per patient, and so on.
People might (!would!) argue the numbers in this post a little, but I think they are at least roughly correct. The COVID-19 numbers might be a bit low as it is in many cases still too early to predict the outcome.
Peter Fairbrother
On 28/02/2020 22:09, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
Best data I have seen for COVID-19 mortality is from 50 in 10,000 or 0.5% for the young-and-fit to 1,500 in 10,000 or 15% for those over 75 and those with pre-existing heart disease. Diabetes and COPD are also bad co-morbidities to have, at about 10% mortality.
COVID-19 seems to kill mostly the elderly, but not nearly as exclusively as 'flu. The young-and-fit are also very much at risk.
This would give an overall mortality rate of about 150-200 per 10,000 or 1.5%-2%. With an estimated 65% of the US population catching COVID-19 that would be 4 million US deaths: much worse than AIDS, and potentially the worst pandemic since the Plague.
Peter Fairbrother
Perhaps Covid19 will help reduce some of the Social Security actuarial issues unaddressed by Congress failing to raise retirement age. On Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 12:47 PM Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/02/2020 22:09, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
Best data I have seen for COVID-19 mortality is from 50 in 10,000 or 0.5% for the young-and-fit to 1,500 in 10,000 or 15% for those over 75 and those with pre-existing heart disease. Diabetes and COPD are also bad co-morbidities to have, at about 10% mortality.
COVID-19 seems to kill mostly the elderly, but not nearly as exclusively as 'flu. The young-and-fit are also very much at risk.
This would give an overall mortality rate of about 150-200 per 10,000 or 1.5%-2%. With an estimated 65% of the US population catching COVID-19 that would be 4 million US deaths: much worse than AIDS, and potentially the worst pandemic since the Plague.
Peter Fairbrother
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 4:10 PM, Steven Schear <schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps Covid19 will help reduce some of the Social Security actuarial issues unaddressed by Congress failing to raise retirement age.
the mortality this winter is going to be interesting. USA doing nearly nothing to prepare. with CDC corruption in progress, perhaps the Russian approach will be adopted :) https://news.yahoo.com/russian-excess-deaths-over-summer-142518552.html ... Tatiana Golikova, the head of Russia's coronavirus crisis centre, told President Vladimir Putin in late July that Russia's coronavirus mortality rate was "significantly lower than in a range of other countries". But data released by the Rosstat State Statistics Service on Sept. 4 show there were 57,800 excess deaths between May and July, the peak of the outbreak. The figure was calculated by comparing fatalities over those three months in 2020 with the average number of May-July deaths between 2015 and 2019. The excess total is more than three times greater than the official May-July COVID-19 death toll of 15,955. Alexei Raksha, a demographer who worked for Rosstat until this summer, said the jump in Russian deaths illustrated the real toll from COVID-19, and that authorities had reported only some of the deaths publicly. "In fact, the fatality rate in Russia differs only a little from other countries," said Raksha. ... best regards,
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 17:10:05 +0100 Steven Schear <schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps Covid19 will help reduce some of the Social Security actuarial issues unaddressed by Congress failing to raise retirement age.
no it won't beacuse 'covid' doesn't exist, FUCKTARD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Germany#By_age_and_gender there, 80 million people, 9000 alleged 'victims', 70% older than 80. Or take china, 1500 million people, 80k 'cases' of fake flu. But then you listen to the fucktard government agents like jim bell, grarpamp, fairbigbrother and you, and learn the 'truth'!
Within the last couple of weeks, I saw a news item that vitamin D-3 helps keep COVID-19 patients out of the hospital. https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/88456 However, there is such a thing as "too much" Vitamin-D. Also, search 'covid ivermectin' and 'covid famotidine'. Jim Bell On Wednesday, September 16, 2020, 04:47:56 AM PDT, Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote: On 28/02/2020 22:09, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
Best data I have seen for COVID-19 mortality is from 50 in 10,000 or 0.5% for the young-and-fit to 1,500 in 10,000 or 15% for those over 75 and those with pre-existing heart disease. Diabetes and COPD are also bad co-morbidities to have, at about 10% mortality.
COVID-19 seems to kill mostly the elderly, but not nearly as exclusively as 'flu. The young-and-fit are also very much at risk.
This would give an overall mortality rate of about 150-200 per 10,000 or 1.5%-2%. With an estimated 65% of the US population catching COVID-19 that would be 4 million US deaths: much worse than AIDS, and potentially the worst pandemic since the Plague.
Peter Fairbrother
On 16/09/2020 21:59, jim bell wrote:
Within the last couple of weeks, I saw a news item that vitamin D-3 helps keep COVID-19 patients out of the hospital.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/88456
However, there is such a thing as "too much" Vitamin-D.
It's more like a lack of vitamin D makes you more likely to die from COVID, and over 30% of US citizens lack vitamin D. Possible 18% reduction in mortality if everyone took a thousand IU daily - but after that increasing the dose does not further improve protection against COVID. There is a trend - possibly a fad - to take 5,000 IU daily or more, but that isn't necessary for COVID. I do take 5,000 IU/d, but I take that much for specific circulatory reasons, not for general health or COVID protection. For most people 5,000 IU may be too much, and it is more than the IOM Tolerable Upper Intake Level of 4,000 IU/d. But if you don't already take vitamin D, start now. 1,000 IU once a day. Very cheap, buck a month, could save your life. Also protects against heart disease. :)
Also, search 'covid ivermectin'
Doesn't seem to work, or at least not very well. Promoted by many of the same people who promoted chloroquine, incidentally.
and 'covid famotidine'.
That one seems to work a bit, but I don't know how well. But then there is dexamethasone/hydrocortisone, with a 30%+ reduction in mortality. Remdesivir, probably not. But beta-interferon and plasma look promising. Treatment has improved and is still improving since my estimate in February of 4 million US deaths - and the virus may have become a little less lethal. Now I'd think it is trending to a little over 2 million US dead if no vaccine is invented. But I thought I'd hold a moment of silence for the 200,000 already dead in the US, and the million dead globally. Peter Fairbrother
On Wednesday, September 16, 2020, 04:47:56 AM PDT, Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/02/2020 22:09, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
Best data I have seen for COVID-19 mortality is from 50 in 10,000 or 0.5% for the young-and-fit to 1,500 in 10,000 or 15% for those over 75 and those with pre-existing heart disease. Diabetes and COPD are also bad co-morbidities to have, at about 10% mortality.
COVID-19 seems to kill mostly the elderly, but not nearly as exclusively as 'flu. The young-and-fit are also very much at risk.
This would give an overall mortality rate of about 150-200 per 10,000 or 1.5%-2%. With an estimated 65% of the US population catching COVID-19 that would be 4 million US deaths: much worse than AIDS, and potentially the worst pandemic since the Plague.
Peter Fairbrother
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 12:45:36 +0100 Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
It's more like a lack of vitamin D makes you more likely to die from COVID, and over 30% of US citizens lack vitamin D.
how much does the queen pay you every time you spam propaganda?
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:45:36PM +0100, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
On 16/09/2020 21:59, jim bell wrote:
Also, search 'covid ivermectin'
Doesn't seem to work, or at least not very well. Promoted by many of the same people who promoted chloroquine, incidentally.
Why do you say that "[ivermectin] doesn't seem to work, or at least not very well" ??
On 18/09/2020 01:22, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:45:36PM +0100, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
On 16/09/2020 21:59, jim bell wrote:
Also, search 'covid ivermectin'
Doesn't seem to work, or at least not very well. Promoted by many of the same people who promoted chloroquine, incidentally.
Why do you say that "[ivermectin] doesn't seem to work, or at least not very well" ??
It is far easier to investigate drugs in cell cultures than in whole humans, so researchers try many drugs in cell cultures to see if they work. That doesn't mean they will work in humans (or not work in humans, you can miss potential treatments too), but it is fairly easy to do and gives some hints about what may work. You can also try a lot more different drugs in cultures than you could try in humans. Ivermectin has been shown to inhibit COVID replication in cell culture. It is very effective at doing this. But only at levels which are too high for use in humans. So, the theory goes, give it a try in humans at the highest sustainable doses and see if it works. A bit of a hail-mary, but it costs very little and the drug is already medically and legally characterised as safe, so you don't have to do safety testing and the trials are even cheaper and easier and quicker. Unfortunately politics has gotten involved, and politicians have invested political capital in the effectiveness of ivermectin. This complicates matters. Scientists have methods to find out whether a drug is safe and effective but they take time (and cost lives). When politics (or finance, or reputation) become involved that process is disrupted, and answers become nebulous, at least temporarily. Clinical trials of ivermectin have begun. Afaik no real big trials have completed, but early reports are not encouraging - I don't mean they are discouraging, but if it worked spectacularly we would have heard the trials people going yeah yeah yeah by now. If you do search for 'covid ivermectin' in google, on the first page you won't find any positive reports from the trials people of its use in humans. [1] It might still work a little: though I doubt it personally, that is still possible. I hope it does. But it isn't a spectacular success, unlike dexamethasone and conjecturally [2] vitamin D, because if it was by now the trials people would be doing handstands and cartwheels - and they aren't. BTW this is almost the same story of chloroquine in COVID. Works well at too-high-for-humans doses in cell culture, is perhaps over-enthusiastically reported by the cell-culture guys, gets picked up by politicians, but, as expected, doesn't work well, or possibly at all, in humans. I say "as expected" because both were hail-mary's, we pretty much knew from the start they were unlikely to work in humans at tolerable doses. If you read the papers carefully you will see that, but perhaps you have to read them carefully and know how such papers are written. As to the cell-culture-guy / political-pickup issue, the cell culture guys were excited not only by a vague hope of a treatment but also because they were learning things about how the virus works. In a hit-it-and-see-if-it-breaks kind of way, but sometimes that can be illuminating. As to the politicians, I guess they either don't have real science advisors or they ignored them. Peter Fairbrother [1] There was a positive report by Prof Mehra etc, but it was widely disbelieved and has been withdrawn. As has his chloroquine paper. It looks like he, or the statistics company, just made stuff up - scientists can be mistaken and even lie too, though that is (supposed to be) the cardinal sin. There have been other positive reports, especially from Australia, Florida and Utah, but these have been mostly anecdotal. Hey if people can say COVID doesn't exist, other people can also say that x or y cures it. Doesn't make them right. If you look carefully you may find that quite a few the people who once said ivermectin cures 100% are now saying, well, maybe it helps. There are reasons why we do double-blind trials, even though they may cost lives. Anecdotal reports are unreliable. [2] We know that people who lack vitamin D are more likely to die from COVID, but we don't actually know that giving people who lack it vitamin D will make them have a higher survival rate. It seems likely, and I assume so, but correlation does not imply causation, and we just don't know for sure. It is just an assumption. OT: Have you noticed, the "we expect that politicians lie" meme has grown to the extent that politicians now use the expectation to get away with outrageous lies and similar behaviours? "Hey, I'm a politician, you expect me to lie".
On Friday, September 18, 2020, 05:54:16 AM PDT, Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote: On 18/09/2020 01:22, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:45:36PM +0100, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
On 16/09/2020 21:59, jim bell wrote:
Also, search 'covid ivermectin'
Doesn't seem to work, or at least not very well. Promoted by many of the same people who promoted chloroquine, incidentally.
Why do you say that "[ivermectin] doesn't seem to work, or at least not very well" ??
It is far easier to investigate drugs in cell cultures than in whole humans, so researchers try many drugs in cell cultures to see if they work. Yes, this is an article from a month ago confirming what you say: https://theconversation.com/ivermectin-is-still-not-a-miracle-cure-for-covid...
Also, one of the early methods to decide which drugs to try involved a method of comparing the physical structure of thousands of drugs to various places on a virus (or a cell) which might inhibit it. This technique is potentially quite useful, because it identifies likely (existing) drugs that could have promise.
That doesn't mean they will work in humans (or not work in humans, you can miss potential treatments too), but it is fairly easy to do and gives some hints about what may work.
You can also try a lot more different drugs in cultures than you could try in humans.
Ivermectin has been shown to inhibit COVID replication in cell culture. It is very effective at doing this. But only at levels which are too high for use in humans.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 01:53:49PM +0100, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
On 18/09/2020 01:22, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:45:36PM +0100, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
On 16/09/2020 21:59, jim bell wrote:
Also, search 'covid ivermectin'
Doesn't seem to work, or at least not very well. Promoted by many of the same people who promoted chloroquine, incidentally.
Why do you say that "[ivermectin] doesn't seem to work, or at least not very well" ??
It is far easier to investigate drugs in cell cultures than in whole humans, so researchers try many drugs in cell cultures to see if they work.
That doesn't mean they will work in humans (or not work in humans, you can miss potential treatments too), but it is fairly easy to do and gives some hints about what may work.
You can also try a lot more different drugs in cultures than you could try in humans.
From your readings, is this with or without the Zinc, and with or without doxycycline to be taken with Ivermectin, to pump that virus killing zinc into the cells?
(I ask this because -exactly- the same "problem" was raised re HCQ - the doses required for efficacy were too high, but when combined with Zinc, worked a treat, and you are so far not providing any links.)
Ivermectin has been shown to inhibit COVID replication in cell culture. It is very effective at doing this. But only at levels which are too high for use in humans. So, the theory goes, give it a try in humans at the highest sustainable doses and see if it works. A bit of a hail-mary, but it costs very little and the drug is already medically and legally characterised as safe, so you don't have to do safety testing and the trials are even cheaper and easier and quicker.
Have you checked any of the human-prescribed samples doing the rounds? If so, please provide the references with links, so we can check what you are saying.
Unfortunately politics has gotten involved, and politicians have invested political capital in the effectiveness of ivermectin. This complicates matters.
I have seen, in the media, the exact opposite, so these two sentences sound remarkably like "MSM spin" to me... not so dissimilar too the Democrats now blaming Biden's mental deterioration on ... Russian hackers.
Scientists have methods to find out whether a drug is safe and effective but they take time (and cost lives). When politics (or finance, or reputation) become involved that process is disrupted, and answers become nebulous, at least temporarily.
In certain cases. In cases where a decades old FDA "essential" drug is at issue, extrapolation of limited tests/trials against a new disease (e.g. Covid-19) can be much quicker than with some brand new, previously untested drug.
Clinical trials of ivermectin have begun.
Unless you say otherwise, I'll assume you are referring to the overly narrow "strict double blind" type of studies strictly in relation to Covid-19. If they're anything like the HCQ "studies", they will target frail people, without the required associated drug (doxycycline) and the required associated mineral Zinc (required in order to be effective, at safe human doses, to eliminate Covid-19). The dastardly crap that has been shovelled down our throats in relation to Covid-19, and e.g. HCQ, is abhorrent. So far, you have not addressed these dastardly issues. By failing thus, you deign to cloak yourself in the high sanctity of "science" whilst setting aside pragmatism, actual and stunningly efficacious results, and all the whilst "unknowingly" (if we give the most generous possible interpretation) falling into the very trap of "politics" which you yourself named above.
Afaik no real big trials have completed, but early reports are not encouraging - I don't mean they are discouraging, but if it worked spectacularly we would have heard the trials people going yeah yeah yeah by now.
Once again you continue in handwaving, not linking to any of this "glorious science" you seem to be so reliant on (and so in love with). How are we to verify your words?
If you do search for 'covid ivermectin' in google, on the first page you won't find any positive reports from the trials people of its use in humans. [1]
Since you seem to have searched, and found, the obvious and courteous step is to include your link.
It might still work a little: though I doubt it personally, that is still possible. I hope it does. But it isn't a spectacular success, unlike dexamethasone and conjecturally [2] vitamin D, because if it was by now the trials people would be doing handstands and cartwheels - and they aren't.
BTW this is almost the same story of chloroquine in COVID. Works well at too-high-for-humans doses in cell culture, is perhaps over-enthusiastically reported by the cell-culture guys, gets picked up by politicians, but, as expected, doesn't work well, or possibly at all, in humans.
You hand wave consistently. Your hand waving is hand waving, because you fail to get specific and link/cite. AND you fail to address the controversy, except with more hand waving of alleged "political motives". Thus, the bulk of your words are the exact "politics" you proclaim to decry.
I say "as expected" because both were hail-mary's, we pretty much knew from the start they were unlikely to work in humans at tolerable doses. If you read the papers carefully you will see that, but perhaps you have to read them carefully and know how such papers are written.
As to the cell-culture-guy / political-pickup issue, the cell culture guys were excited not only by a vague hope of a treatment but also because they were learning things about how the virus works. In a hit-it-and-see-if-it-breaks kind of way, but sometimes that can be illuminating.
As to the politicians, I guess they either don't have real science advisors or they ignored them.
Here's some politics in science: Ivermectin and COVID-19 https://www.nps.org.au/news/ivermectin-and-covid-19-for-hps ... The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) are currently investigating ‘promotion’ of an ivermectin-based regimen for COVID-19, by gastroenterologist Professor Thomas Borody. Professor Borody, who developed triple-therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection, has recommended that GPs prescribe a triple therapy protocol using ivermectin, doxycycline and zinc. However, some of his comments are being investigated by the TGA as they potentially breach the ban on advertising COVID-19 treatments.18 ... Yep ... what doctors are even allowed to say, such as "I just ran this regimen on over 1000 people, and the result is 100% elimination of Covid-19", potentially breaches the TGA's politics on what doctors are allowed to say or not - in other words, politics. FairBigBrother indeed....
Peter Fairbrother
[1] There was a positive report by Prof Mehra etc, but it was widely disbelieved and has been withdrawn. As has his chloroquine paper. It looks like he, or the statistics company, just made stuff up - scientists can be mistaken and even lie too, though that is (supposed to be) the cardinal sin.
There have been other positive reports, especially from Australia, Florida and Utah, but these have been mostly anecdotal. Hey if people can say COVID doesn't exist, other people can also say that x or y cures it. Doesn't make them right.
If you look carefully you may find that quite a few the people who once said ivermectin cures 100% are now saying, well, maybe it helps.
There are reasons why we do double-blind trials, even though they may cost lives. Anecdotal reports are unreliable.
[2] We know that people who lack vitamin D are more likely to die from COVID, but we don't actually know that giving people who lack it vitamin D will make them have a higher survival rate. It seems likely, and I assume so, but correlation does not imply causation, and we just don't know for sure. It is just an assumption.
OT: Have you noticed, the "we expect that politicians lie" meme has grown to the extent that politicians now use the expectation to get away with outrageous lies and similar behaviours?
"Hey, I'm a politician, you expect me to lie".
On 18/09/2020 23:34, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
From your readings, is this with or without the Zinc, and with or without doxycycline to be taken with Ivermectin, to pump that virus killing zinc into the cells?
The original ivermectin cell culture experiments did not include supplemental zinc or doxycycline. I am not aware of any cell culture experiments which tested the three drugs together.
(I ask this because -exactly- the same "problem" was raised re HCQ - the doses required for efficacy were too high, but when combined with Zinc, worked a treat, and you are so far not providing any links.)
I don't know of any believeable reports that say "HCQ [..] combined with Zinc, worked a treat". Afaict HCQ therapy doesn't have any effect at all on COVID. I do not know offhand of any reports of COVID cell culture experiments with (hydroxy)chloroquine which included supplemental zinc. As of June there were none, and I don't know of any since, though there may have been some. (There are plenty of experiments with chloroquine and zinc, but afaik all are pre-COVID. There might be some SARS-related CQ/Zn experiments, will look if I find time) There is a protein coded in the ORF1 part of the virus which sequesters zinc. We are not certain why, but it is theorised that it is in part to reduce the activity of zinc-containing proteins (ZAPs, zinc-finger antiviral proteins) naturally in the cells which help protect against viruses. There is good evidence that a lack of zinc lowers protection against pretty much all viruses, so... Personally I would include zinc supplementation with any COVID treatment regime, as standard. I also personally take zinc (and vitamin D) supplements. But there will be (or should be) zinc in normal amounts in standard cell cultures, so don't take all this as being too significant.
Have you checked any of the human-prescribed samples doing the rounds?
Yes, and I referred to them in footnote 1 of my last post. The problem is that they are of no use scientifically, except to maybe suggest lines of research. This is harsh, but it is absolutely necessary. People often think a drug is working when it isn't. Often. Observational and retrospective studies get it wrong all the time - and positive reports get more screen time. There are so many examples - remdesivir for instance was thought to work in early clinical trials, but randomised double-blind trials have shown pretty conclusively that it doesn't. Which is why you only believe double blind randomised trials. Preferably ones which have been repeated by different researchers. Now as to my opinions, as opposed to accepted science. I don't think hydroxychloroquine works at all, whether mixed with zinc or zinc/azithromycin or by itself, any more than the normal effects of zinc and azithromycin (both of which will help survival). We are close to saying that is accepted science, but not quite yet, so as of now it is only my strong opinion. However research suggests azithromycin alone gives pretty much the same effect as hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202005.0486/v1 I don't think ivermectin alone works more than a little, and probably not at all. For ivermectin with zinc and doxycycline, see below.
Unfortunately politics has gotten involved, and politicians have invested political capital in the effectiveness of ivermectin. This complicates matters.
I have seen, in the media, the exact opposite
I don't know what you mean by "the exact opposite". [...]
Here's some politics in science:
Ivermectin and COVID-19 https://www.nps.org.au/news/ivermectin-and-covid-19-for-hps
... The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) are currently investigating ‘promotion’ of an ivermectin-based regimen for COVID-19, by gastroenterologist Professor Thomas Borody. Professor Borody, who developed triple-therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection, has recommended that GPs prescribe a triple therapy protocol using ivermectin, doxycycline and zinc. However, some of his comments are being investigated by the TGA as they potentially breach the ban on advertising COVID-19 treatments.18 ...
Yep ... what doctors are even allowed to say, such as "I just ran this regimen on over 1000 people, and the result is 100% elimination of Covid-19", potentially breaches the TGA's politics on what doctors are allowed to say or not - in other words, politics.
I am not responsible for the Australian government's actions, not do I condone them - but I will say that I do not believe Professor Borody's results. Not saying I disbelieve them, though I am extremely sceptical about their significance. Zinc alone, and doxycycline alone, will both have some positive effect on mortality. Zinc because some people will lack zinc and have lowered ZAP protection, doxycycline because it will prevent some opportunistic bacterial infections (and it also has some antiviral effects). So far, so good. Giving people - everybody - zinc (and vitamin D) supplements as prophylactics will almost certainly help. Giving everybody doxycycline is a bit more problematic, but as soon as COVID is detected giving it will help, at least statistically. The issue then is, does ivermectin have any effect? Alone, or with zinc/doxycyline in some synergistic manner? Well, we don't know. Alone it doesn't seem to have much effect, though it may have some, the jury is still out on that. Professor Borody claims it has a surprising, and hard-to-believe, positive synergistic effect with zinc/doxycyline. But let's look a little further. First he claims the triple therapy is most effective against people in the early stages of the disease. Well, a lot of them are going to get better anyway. The zinc and doxycycline will help there too. And while he is planning to introduce the treatment in older people (who have a much higher mortality rate), he hasn't done so yet - the 1,000 patients treated so far have not been older people, so we would not have expected more than one or two of them to die. And if someone does die, well he can always say it was too late for them, and exclude them from his 100% results. Convenient. Or 92% results. Or 48% results. But perhaps the clincher is this a quote from Professor Borody which makes my snake-oil antennae twitch furiously: http://covexit.com/professor-thomas-borody-interview-part-1/ "If anyone suggests a randomized controlled trial, it tells me they don’t know what they’re talking about." If he wants to save lives, and he believes his therapy works, randomized double-blind controlled trials are the only way to get lots of people to use his therapy. He should know that. Without them he is going to be thought of as a charlatan; with them either it works and he gets the Nobel prize and everybody is saved, or ... So when he says no to proper trials, a big, big red flag goes up. I guess that is scientific politics - but the randomised double-blind test is designed for one purpose, to find the truth and to be sure it is the truth. It may be a bit cruel - but it is the only way we know, and perhaps the only way there is. All modern medicine is based on it. Peter Fairbrother and no, I am not going to provide a list of references - this is not a paper, I don't have to, and it is a lot of work. But here's one: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/05/19/taking-hydroxychlo...
On Sat, 19 Sep 2020 14:32:46 +0100 Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> VOMITED :
On 18/09/2020 23:34, Zenaan Harkness VOMITED :
keep going assholes. The more you lie, the bigger your bonuses get. did I mention that this list is a pathetic joke? Scratch that. This list is a government propaganda cesspool.
why the fuck are you still here then? :) do you wake up first thing in the morning, struggling to breathe due to the effects of the attacks on your freedom? are you hoping to find some way forward from the fucking fucked up state we're in and have been for years? looking to this list in the hope that a revolutionary will step forward and lead you to the freedom you desire? being constantly dissappointed by the mostly ordinary people on the list who are looking for the same in a nice safe way that doesn't threaten their comfortable life? shi, ain't it lol Wouldn't it be nice if anyone on here actually believed we were making a difference and actually were capable of making a difference? On September 19, 2020 4:14:59 PM UTC, "Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0" <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2020 14:32:46 +0100 Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> VOMITED :
On 18/09/2020 23:34, Zenaan Harkness VOMITED :
keep going assholes. The more you lie, the bigger your bonuses get.
did I mention that this list is a pathetic joke? Scratch that. This list is a government propaganda cesspool.
On Sat, 19 Sep 2020 17:36:39 +0000 blackdog <bl4ck-do9@yandex.ru> wrote:
why the fuck are you still here then? :)
because, I subscribe to the anti-govcorp, pro-privacy principles that cypherpunks are supposed to stand for. Also, giving credit where credit is due, there is no censorship on this list. In that regard the list is valuable.
do you wake up first thing in the morning, struggling to breathe due to the effects of the attacks on your freedom?
yeah and I don't even wear a mask!
are you hoping to find some way forward from the fucking fucked up state we're in and have been for years?
lately i've become somewhat skeptical of the existence of such a way =/
looking to this list in the hope that a revolutionary will step forward and lead you to the freedom you desire? being constantly dissappointed by the mostly ordinary people on the list who are looking for the same in a nice safe way that doesn't threaten their comfortable life? shi, ain't it lol
I dont think having a leader is important or even desirable. If there's a way forward, it's probably based on reaching a critical mass of people who 'spontaneously' know what to do. As to people being ordinary, maybe, but some of the stuff posted here, even though it's ordinary propaganda, it's not the sort of thing you'd expect to see on a cryptoanarchy mailing list. Completely uncritical views on this flu nonsense coming from alleged 'libertarians' is just crazy.
Wouldn't it be nice if anyone on here actually believed we were making a difference and actually were capable of making a difference?
On September 19, 2020 4:14:59 PM UTC, "Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0" <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2020 14:32:46 +0100 Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> VOMITED :
On 18/09/2020 23:34, Zenaan Harkness VOMITED :
keep going assholes. The more you lie, the bigger your bonuses get.
did I mention that this list is a pathetic joke? Scratch that. This list is a government propaganda cesspool.
participants (11)
-
blackdog -
coderman -
Georgi Guninski -
jim bell -
Peter Fairbrother -
Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 -
Punk-Stasi 2.0
-
Razer -
rooty -
Steven Schear -
Zenaan Harkness