Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Deaths per million

USA 3066

Brazil 3086

The USA with it is said has the best medical care in the world is almost the same as Brazil which doesn't have that great of medical care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 11.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

2 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

Deaths per million

USA 3066

Brazil 3086

The USA with it is said has the best medical care in the world is almost the same as Brazil which doesn't have that great of medical care.

Case fatality, though, is only 1.2% which isn't much higher than Canada at 1.0%.

 

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, DB said:

I think we should apply mustard plasters to all affected body parts. We have no evidence that it does any good, but why not do it anyway? After all, in the US we can probably charge hundreds of dollars for it, which is pure win!

I don't see an issue.  If some clinicians were saying mustard plasters seem to work and there were no health related complications and this wasn't substituting for a more proven and effective treatment why on earth wouldn't we let people try it?  At a minimum the placebo effect alone has significant data that it helps and there is very little to lose trying it.  Would it be a huge long shot?  Sure but so was a tenuous intuitive leap the dairy girls didn't get small pox.  That seemed to work out surprisingly well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, nitflegal said:

I don't see an issue.  If some clinicians were saying mustard plasters seem to work and there were no health related complications and this wasn't substituting for a more proven and effective treatment why on earth wouldn't we let people try it?  At a minimum the placebo effect alone has significant data that it helps and there is very little to lose trying it.  Would it be a huge long shot?  Sure but so was a tenuous intuitive leap the dairy girls didn't get small pox.  That seemed to work out surprisingly well.

The irony of aforesaid dismissive response roughly 5 posts after my post about the Yale "messaging" (read "social engineering") is ironic. The clinical/therapeutic responses of governments to COVID-19 were overall awful, but their social engineering was clearly quite effective. Large numbers of people have a pointy hat, carrot, and string ready for mob action.

After all, the use of HCQ as a potential early outpatient treatment for coronavirus infections was brought up by none other than Tony Fauci soon after SARS-CoV-1; and as we all know, Tony Fauci IS Science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snake oil and homeopathy are the same concept - and that concept is to extract money from people who aren't experts by unprincipled people who are experts, or who can portray themselves as such.

Whilst one can argue that the stupid deserve to be exploited, I am of the opinion that this is not moral behaviour and falls far short of the standards expected by professional bodies that aren't thieves' guilds. (I won't say that the US medical profession is a thieves' guild, because I respect the two members I know here who are medical doctors).

For comparison, I consider that advice to take Vitamin D because it might be beneficial in modulating immune system response to a COVID-19 infection is responsible - there is already good reason for many, if not most, people to supplement their Vitamin D levels with known benefits and provided that good dosage advice is followed there is minimal risk, and essentially minimal useless cost.

I'm not against the use of "safe" snake oils per se. I'm against professionals promoting them for profit to groups of people who really don't need to be spending money on yet another useless thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or Europeans are better than North Americans? (Provided you exclude Russia, obviously)

And 20% isn't what I'd call "only", it's statistically significant given the massive dataset. Of course, what causes that significance is open to debate and ranges from different reporting standards to wilful ignorance of reasonable measures for self-protection and all the various mis-steps in between.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

COVID SCIENCE-Symptoms linger two years for some; inflammatory protein patterns may provide long COVID clues.

COVID SCIENCE-Symptoms linger two years for some; inflammatory protein patterns may provide long COVID clues (msn.com)

 

Novavax confident Covid vaccine will receive FDA authorization in June after delays.

Novavax confident Covid vaccine will receive FDA authorization in June after delays (msn.com)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, DB said:

Snake oil and homeopathy are the same concept - and that concept is to extract money from people who aren't experts by unprincipled people who are experts, or who can portray themselves as such.

Whilst one can argue that the stupid deserve to be exploited, I am of the opinion that this is not moral behaviour and falls far short of the standards expected by professional bodies that aren't thieves' guilds. (I won't say that the US medical profession is a thieves' guild, because I respect the two members I know here who are medical doctors).

For comparison, I consider that advice to take Vitamin D because it might be beneficial in modulating immune system response to a COVID-19 infection is responsible - there is already good reason for many, if not most, people to supplement their Vitamin D levels with known benefits and provided that good dosage advice is followed there is minimal risk, and essentially minimal useless cost.

I'm not against the use of "safe" snake oils per se. I'm against professionals promoting them for profit to groups of people who really don't need to be spending money on yet another useless thing.

I think you're stretching here.  HCQ isn't snake oil, it's a proven therapeutic with minimal side effects and a mechanism of action that could, in theory, hit some of the pathogenic pathways of Covid.  It also was touted because it is dirt cheap, there is no real profit angle to "sell" it as it is off patent by several decades.  It may well not work for crap but during the time it was touted there were no alternatives.  There was also, and still continues to be, a sizable amount of anecdotal reports of efficacy.  To me the scandal is that all of this could have been put to bed 2 years ago had any of the major medical agencies run a full on fast-track clinical trial and given us a definitive answer in less than 6 months for a preliminary report.  Every western health agency refused while spending the same resources on several on-patent medications that had a far more tenuous evidence based recommendation.  WIth nothing to lose and unlimited panic funding they declined this one (the super cheap one) but did test multiple likely failures repeatedly.  I have yet to see a reasonable explanation why Viagra was tested and this wasn't.  Oh gosh, did nobody report that in the newspapers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Frankly anyone at this point who calls HCQ or Ivermectin Snake Oil is bloody out to lunch and clearly not coming back to work because they've had way too much to drink so to speak. You might as well be saying something like Penicillin is just bread yeast. For us in the first world Ivermectin or HCQ isn't a thing. But for someone from Africa (for example) where Onchocerciasis, or river blindness is prevalent, it's a bloody god send. Likewise hydroxychloroquine is a proven and effective anti-malarial drug. 

Only someone from the well off and aloof first world can make such blithe pronouncements. 

https://www.drugs.com/ivermectin.html
https://www.drugs.com/hydroxychloroquine.html

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, rmgill said:

Frankly anyone at this point who calls HCQ or Ivermectin Snake Oil is bloody out to lunch and clearly not coming back to work because they've had way too much to drink so to speak. You might as well be saying something like Penicillin is just bread yeast. For us in the first world Ivermectin or HCQ isn't a thing. But for someone from Africa (for example) where Onchocerciasis, or river blindness is prevalent, it's a bloody god send. Likewise hydroxychloroquine is a proven and effective anti-malarial drug. 

Only someone from the well off and aloof first world can make such blithe pronouncements. 

https://www.drugs.com/ivermectin.html
https://www.drugs.com/hydroxychloroquine.html

LOL, so sad. The reference to snake oil was in regard to their use in the treatment of covid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, we know that nothing is cheap in the US health care system, and it's already been tainted by the massive over-prescribing of addictive pain relief as a lazy way to "treat" patients with chronic pain and then addiction. Why is giving a "treatment" that has no demonstrated benefits at all anything other than snake oil? the intent is to profit - the people doing it have a messianic zeal to self-promote and have deliberately blinded themselves to the evidence, even  to the point of concocting conspiracies claiming that nobody has performed any research on these drugs when reports of these are being produced regularly, almost monthly.

This isn't about the drugs potentially causing physical harm (although very few drugs have no side effects at all), this is about wasting resources, causing panic and by the methods chosen to advertise their flim-flam, undermining confidence in science and medicine even further.

I'm expecting comments about Fauci having undermined medicine more than anyone else now, but that's really just part of the anti-science, anti-medicine, anti-evidence nonsense that seems designed to poison any future response to a more dangerous epidemic, conditioning the US to fail hard and die in millions when the next one hits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DB said:

Look, we know that nothing is cheap in the US health care system, and it's already been tainted by the massive over-prescribing of addictive pain relief as a lazy way to "treat" patients with chronic pain and then addiction. Why is giving a "treatment" that has no demonstrated benefits at all anything other than snake oil? the intent is to profit - the people doing it have a messianic zeal to self-promote and have deliberately blinded themselves to the evidence, even  to the point of concocting conspiracies claiming that nobody has performed any research on these drugs when reports of these are being produced regularly, almost monthly.

This isn't about the drugs potentially causing physical harm (although very few drugs have no side effects at all), this is about wasting resources, causing panic and by the methods chosen to advertise their flim-flam, undermining confidence in science and medicine even further.

I'm expecting comments about Fauci having undermined medicine more than anyone else now, but that's really just part of the anti-science, anti-medicine, anti-evidence nonsense that seems designed to poison any future response to a more dangerous epidemic, conditioning the US to fail hard and die in millions when the next one hits.

primarily because for the first year and a half of the pandemic there actually was mixed result data from survey studies.  For every paper that said a survey of patients showed no effect there was another one that said there were.  I had the good fortune to work with clinicians on the frontlines during HIV and SARS in the third world.  The typical mindset is they will lose patients (and probably a lot of them) but they will fight death with everything that they have and try anything that doesn't have more risk than upside.  You state that there were no demonstrated benefits but in this thread dozens of papers have been shown to say that they found significant benefits.  Were they wrong?  Maybe, but wrong when looked at in the rearview is not the same as looking over the evidence available at the time and putting yourself in the heads of those dealing with the pandemic as part of their daily job and not a bunch of us debating on the internet.  Here is a good synopsis of what we thought going into the summer of 2020.  https://www.nature.com/articles/d41591-020-00019-9 Note that it cites both HCQ and the horse dewormer as promising but with some contradictory data just like almost everything else.  Here's a question, most of these have had the same type of results as HCQ and Ivermectin in the 2 years since then and were used just as heavily by clinicians on the front lines (which is weird since it doesn't get cited in the media when they keep only brining up two of them. . .).  Why not?  Was it because Trump cited them and not the others?  Odd since he was using current research in the field at the time as his basis (may help, we won't know for a year and that applies to all of these drugs) and he picked the only two that were in such wide use for human conditions that they had manufacturing facilities that could ramp up immediately.  Which is also partly why many clinicians were so on board for them, they were the drugs on this pick-list that were readily available and could be gotten into patients. 

Fortunately for us, the CDC's in our respective countries were able to throttle back the use of these relatively risk free questionable drugs in favor of sedation and intubation that killed tens of thousands of saveable patients. . .  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, nitflegal said:

 

Fortunately for us, the CDC's in our respective countries were able to throttle back the use of these relatively risk free questionable drugs in favor of sedation and intubation that killed tens of thousands of saveable patients. . .  

Speaking of which, in the first few months, were hospitals that were putting Px on ventilators doing anything about thrombosis? I have the impression that they were simply chasing SpO2, but I have yet to see a detailed AAR on actual patients for various inpatient treatments.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

Speaking of which, in the first few months, were hospitals that were putting Px on ventilators doing anything about thrombosis? I have the impression that they were simply chasing SpO2, but I have yet to see a detailed AAR on actual patients for various inpatient treatments.

 

Not generally that I am aware of.  I personally feel this is far more of a cardiovascular disease than it is a respiratory one but even today the consensus isn't there.  Everything that I have read about the ventilator era seems to indicate they were primarily trying to get the O2 sat up and not treating underlying causes that created the situation.  To be fair, for the first half of that era I don't think anyone had a good understanding of the mechanism of action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, nitflegal said:

Not generally that I am aware of.  I personally feel this is far more of a cardiovascular disease than it is a respiratory one but even today the consensus isn't there.  Everything that I have read about the ventilator era seems to indicate they were primarily trying to get the O2 sat up and not treating underlying causes that created the situation.  To be fair, for the first half of that era I don't think anyone had a good understanding of the mechanism of action.

In light of that it is interesting that attempt of using Sildenafil has been scoffed at as well.  Oh, maybe because the pejorative "Viagra" was  used to describe the medication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, nitflegal said:

Not generally that I am aware of.  I personally feel this is far more of a cardiovascular disease than it is a respiratory one but even today the consensus isn't there.  Everything that I have read about the ventilator era seems to indicate they were primarily trying to get the O2 sat up and not treating underlying causes that created the situation.  To be fair, for the first half of that era I don't think anyone had a good understanding of the mechanism of action.

I searched some of my COVID download folders. By July 2020 they knew there was a clotting thing, as I have a PDF file from some obscure pharmacist organization that listed therapeutics being tried, including anticoagulants. And then there's this;

The possible mechanisms of action of 4-aminoquinolines (chloroquine/
hydroxychloroquine) against Sars-Cov-2 infection (COVID-19): A role for
iron homeostasis?
Eugenia Quiros Roldan, Giorgio Biasiotto, Paola Magro, Isabella Zanella

Available online 13 May 2020
1043-6618/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd.

Note that, on my home desktop system, the modification date for the above file is 2020-05-25. So the paper had "escaped the lab" and was running around the public square 7 days after online publication.

Quote

Chinese cardiologists have reported diffuse micro-vascular thrombosis in various organs on autopsy examination in patients died for COVID-19, particularly in the lung. Taking into consideration this diffuse thrombosis, Chinese physicians have recommended anti-coagulant therapy in these patients, but no pharmacological protocols have
currently been published [73].

In all fairness, while other nations allowed their MDs to look at a wide variety of symptoms and try treatments, a hospital doc in the US giving anticoagulants to someone on a vent may well have lost his/her license in the first 6 months of the thing.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

I searched some of my COVID download folders. By July 2020 they knew there was a clotting thing, as I have a PDF file from some obscure pharmacist organization that listed therapeutics being tried, including anticoagulants. And then there's this;

The possible mechanisms of action of 4-aminoquinolines (chloroquine/
hydroxychloroquine) against Sars-Cov-2 infection (COVID-19): A role for
iron homeostasis?
Eugenia Quiros Roldan, Giorgio Biasiotto, Paola Magro, Isabella Zanella

Available online 13 May 2020
1043-6618/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd.

Note that, on my home desktop system, the modification date for the above file is 2020-05-25. So the paper had "escaped the lab" and was running around the public square 7 days after online publication.

In all fairness, while other nations allowed their MDs to look at a wide variety of symptoms and try treatments, a hospital doc in the US giving anticoagulants to someone on a vent may well have lost his/her license in the first 6 months of the thing.

 

 

I've been a program chair on three COVID conference platforms to date and the CV primary is still not widely accepted.  About the end of 2020 it seemed to be accepted that there a CV component but it is still being debated how much of the problem in CV and how much respiratory.  That's not unusual though and tracks with what I was saying back when this whole sh*tshow started; We're not going to have a general mechanistic consensus until 4-5 years into the thing.  there are so many quickly written papers with mediocre methodologies that sorting the wheat from the chaff will take those years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New study shows antiviral drug can eliminate Covid after two days.

New study shows antiviral drug can eliminate Covid after two days (msn.com)

 

Former Biden Covid advisor dismisses White House warning on case numbers: 'Based on pixie dust'.

Former Biden Covid advisor dismisses White House warning on case numbers: 'Based on pixie dust' (msn.com)

 

FDA authorizes first home test to detect COVID-19 and flu with single nasal swab.

FDA authorizes first home test to detect COVID-19 and flu with single nasal swab (msn.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/15/2022 at 3:56 PM, nitflegal said:

primarily because for the first year and a half of the pandemic there actually was mixed result data from survey studies.  For every paper that said a survey of patients showed no effect there was another one that said there were.  I had the good fortune to work with clinicians on the frontlines during HIV and SARS in the third world.  The typical mindset is they will lose patients (and probably a lot of them) but they will fight death with everything that they have and try anything that doesn't have more risk than upside.  You state that there were no demonstrated benefits but in this thread dozens of papers have been shown to say that they found significant benefits.  Were they wrong?  Maybe, but wrong when looked at in the rearview is not the same as looking over the evidence available at the time and putting yourself in the heads of those dealing with the pandemic as part of their daily job and not a bunch of us debating on the internet.  Here is a good synopsis of what we thought going into the summer of 2020.  https://www.nature.com/articles/d41591-020-00019-9 Note that it cites both HCQ and the horse dewormer as promising but with some contradictory data just like almost everything else.  Here's a question, most of these have had the same type of results as HCQ and Ivermectin in the 2 years since then and were used just as heavily by clinicians on the front lines (which is weird since it doesn't get cited in the media when they keep only brining up two of them. . .).  Why not?  Was it because Trump cited them and not the others?  Odd since he was using current research in the field at the time as his basis (may help, we won't know for a year and that applies to all of these drugs) and he picked the only two that were in such wide use for human conditions that they had manufacturing facilities that could ramp up immediately.  Which is also partly why many clinicians were so on board for them, they were the drugs on this pick-list that were readily available and could be gotten into patients. 

Fortunately for us, the CDC's in our respective countries were able to throttle back the use of these relatively risk free questionable drugs in favor of sedation and intubation that killed tens of thousands of saveable patients. . .  

Whilst all of that is true, there's no excuse now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...