COVID-19

[PerthDomer]

Idk even know what to think about it all,… obviously governments lie but that doesn’t mean we are witnessing some huge coverup/conspiracy,… however I did run the student services of a top nursing school some years back and Ive seen the hospitals we partnered with (including the one I was born in) in the news. The hospitals in question were shown as overrun, people dying in the hallways, totally overwhelmed. So I reached out to a couple former students I know are now in those hospitals to see if they’re okay and each time they basically laughed and said if anything the had too little to do, hospital was near empty,… I don’t freakin know what to think about it all.

I did fellowship at a childrens hospital and we were empty most of the time. The adult cases were under control so we only took an ecmo consult or 2 in 20 year olds in outlying areas. The normal flu/rsv/pneumonia season was crushed by social distancing.

Adult hospitals were over capacity at times when we had surges, but our mortality rate is between a half and a third of the national average. We went above capacity once because an outlying city of 250k had an outbreak and after overwhelming local hospitals patients were shunted to seattle which overwhelmed the adult hospitals.

Now, we have viruses again, normal trauma season, working through planned surgeries that got delayed. Delta is bad and causes real disease in peds. A lot of hospitals got financially crushed by this so they let people go/didnt hire. We're now seeing what a pandemic without mitigation does. Places with bad vaccination rates will do poorly.

 

[IrishLax]

https://news.yahoo.com/cholesterol-...5.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw&tsrc=twtr — a possible miracle drug that might actually work and isn’t completely fake nonsense like most of the others that grifters have hawked. Will be interesting to follow the clinical trials.

 

[NorthDakota]

https://news.yahoo.com/cholesterol-...5.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw&tsrc=twtr — a possible miracle drug that might actually work and isn’t completely fake nonsense like most of the others that grifters have hawked. Will be interesting to follow the clinical trials.

I'll cross my fingers.

In other COVID news: Been very amusing of late to see the grinding and gnashing of teeth over Sturgis while sporting events, concerts, Lollapalooza, etc. all have gotten a pass.

 

[IrishRazor82]

https://news.yahoo.com/cholesterol-d...k=tw&tsrc=twtr — a possible miracle drug that might actually work and isn’t completely fake nonsense like most of the others that grifters have hawked. Will be interesting to follow the clinical trials.

At best it'll be nearly as effective as Ivermectin, hopefully as safe, but cost thousands to fill. This is why they're funding the downplay of Ivermectin while this sits in development.

It's crazy that only like 10% of people see this, the number should be 99% in a society with access and sense like we should have.

Another peer reviewed study came out 5 days ago: https://www.cureus.com/articles/64807

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

https://news.yahoo.com/cholesterol-...5.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw&tsrc=twtr — a possible miracle drug that might actually work and isn’t completely fake nonsense like most of the others that grifters have hawked. Will be interesting to follow the clinical trials.

Our data indicates that fenofibrate may have the potential to reduce the severity of COVID-19 symptoms and also virus spread," Dr. Elisa Vicenzi of the San Raffaele Scientific Institute in Milan and co-author, said in the release. "Given that fenofibrate is an oral drug which is very cheap and available worldwide, together with its extensive history of clinical use and its good safety profile, our data has global implications.

This is similar to redemsivir IMO. This drug, which has a well known history of use and side effects and appears to reduce severity of symptoms, meets what I understand the criteria for do no harm. As I stated before doctors tend to be squirrely about prescribing drugs they are uncomfortable with regarding interactions and lack of case studies. With this already well known regarding interactions, good safety profile and common usage for cholestorol...its a no -brainer to expand a developing arsenal to combat these variants.

 

[Rogue219]

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...ootball-team-to-100-percent-vaccination-rate/

Of all the coaches in all the possible places.

 

[Irishize]

At best it'll be nearly as effective as Ivermectin, hopefully as safe, but cost thousands to fill. This is why they're funding the downplay of Ivermectin while this sits in development.

It's crazy that only like 10% of people see this, the number should be 99% in a society with access and sense like we should have.

Another peer reviewed study came out 5 days ago: https://www.cureus.com/articles/64807

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

You didn’t read the article did you? This, too; is a generic compound that would cost pennies on the dollar to fill. Fenofibrates have been around for years. The largest brand fenofibrate that most would be familiar with is Tricor.

 

[NDPhilly]

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...ootball-team-to-100-percent-vaccination-rate/

Of all the coaches in all the possible places.

Think this is hilarious bc the coaches just don't want to miss games and think 100% vaccination is the way to avoid that. Odds are some 100% vaxxed teams in the NFL and CFB has an outbreak that causes them to miss time.

 

[Irishize]

Think this is hilarious bc the coaches just don't want to miss games and think 100% vaccination is the way to avoid that. Odds are some 100% vaxxed teams in the NFL and CFB has an outbreak that causes them to miss time.

I was thinking the same thing. There’s gonna be a ton of players that still test positive and will have to sit despite being vaccinated. Anyone know if NCAA or conferences will require testing of all players on a weekly basis despite being vaxed & asymptomatic?

 

[Trait Expectations]

At best it'll be nearly as effective as Ivermectin, hopefully as safe, but cost thousands to fill. This is why they're funding the downplay of Ivermectin while this sits in development.

It's crazy that only like 10% of people see this, the number should be 99% in a society with access and sense like we should have.

Another peer reviewed study came out 5 days ago: https://www.cureus.com/articles/64807

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

Have you read anyone else's links/info? I'm curious if you really care to exchange ideas or if you just want to defend you're already-well-established position? I still haven't seen you reply to my last couple posts. I can dig them up if you'd like?

IrishRazor82

 

[TorontoGold]

At best it'll be nearly as effective as Ivermectin, hopefully as safe, but cost thousands to fill. This is why they're funding the downplay of Ivermectin while this sits in development.

It's crazy that only like 10% of people see this, the number should be 99% in a society with access and sense like we should have.

Another peer reviewed study came out 5 days ago: https://www.cureus.com/articles/64807

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

Weren't you complaining that vaccines were only designed for one strain only (which is false, btw), yet this is a study from September 2020 in a singular hospital? Which was likely only studied on a strain which is dissimilar than the UK/Delta variants? Is the irony lost on you?

 

[IrishRazor82]

I was thinking the same thing. There’s gonna be a ton of players that still test positive and will have to sit despite being vaccinated. Anyone know if NCAA or conferences will require testing of all players on a weekly basis despite being vaxed & asymptomatic?

Don't they stop testing NFL players if they get vaccinated? Unvacc'd are tested either daily or weekly, but unvacc'd are not tested. So it's built in to ignore cases if you're vacc'd as a safeguard.

Or did this change?

"For those fully vaccinated, there will be no daily testing, whereas those who are not fully vaccinated must be tested every day."

https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-nflpa-agree-to-updated-covid-19-protocols-for-training-camp-preseason

 

[IrishRazor82]

Weren't you complaining that vaccines were only designed for one strain only (which is false, btw), yet this is a study from September 2020 in a singular hospital? Which was likely only studied on a strain which is dissimilar than the UK/Delta variants? Is the irony lost on you?

Do you think the vaccines are effective against other strains? Because that's obviously not true for Delta.

And no, the meteanalysis is a combination of 18 studies from around the globe. And while it's too early to say it's prevention against all strains, it has proven successful against P1, Brazil variant, and one other that I cannot name off of the top of my head.

Note the delta was not around when the 18 study paper was reviewed, so I can't say if it's effective against Delta, but it hadn't met a variant it didn't prevent as of the time the paper was written.

 

[TorontoGold]

Do you think the vaccines are effective against other strains? Because that's obviously not true for Delta.

And no, the meteanalysis is a combination of 18 studies from around the globe. And while it's too early to say it's prevention against all strains, it has proven successful against P1, Brazil variant, and one other that I cannot name off of the top of my head.

Note the delta was not around when the 18 study paper was reviewed, so I can't say if it's effective against Delta, but it hadn't met a variant it didn't prevent as of the time the paper was written.

Absolutely effective, look at hospitalizations. Interestingly enough there's a large chunk of data that shows the tremendous impact of vaccines on hospitalizations and symptomatic infection, that is readily available.

Looking at this in a binary light is what my issue is, I don't have an issue with other therapeutics, it's the belief that - I'm not taking a vaccine so I will take something has had less impressive results and less available data. That's the issue, so if it ends up being an effective therapeutic then great but vaccines will always be king.

 

[notredomer23]

Do you think the vaccines are effective against other strains? Because that's obviously not true for Delta.

And no, the meteanalysis is a combination of 18 studies from around the globe. And while it's too early to say it's prevention against all strains, it has proven successful against P1, Brazil variant, and one other that I cannot name off of the top of my head.

Note the delta was not around when the 18 study paper was reviewed, so I can't say if it's effective against Delta, but it hadn't met a variant it didn't prevent as of the time the paper was written.

NJ as an example of vaccine effectiveness, considering 65% of total population is fully vaccinated and over 75% of eligible:


[TWEET]https://twitter.com/GovMurphy/status/1424780645662920707?s=20[/TWEET]

 

[IrishLax]

Do you think the vaccines are effective against other strains? Because that's obviously not true for Delta.

It is obviously true for Delta. There is mountains of data showing that it is effective against Delta. You just make stuff up or cite intentionally warped "statistics" to try to con stupid people into believing things that aren't true.

 

[PerthDomer]

I was really excited the mrna vaccines were so effective with no big side effects early... the fact people could demagogue against that despite the fact it caused 1/6 the myocarditis of a covid infection (with less serious cases) makes it really unsurprising a mild decline in efficacy vs. Mild disease would cause the demagogues to come out in force.

Wait till we hear about most deaths being amongst the vaccinated in New England because everyone is vaccinated...

 

[NDPhilly]

NJ as an example of vaccine effectiveness, considering 65% of total population is fully vaccinated and over 75% of eligible:


[TWEET]https://twitter.com/GovMurphy/status/1424780645662920707?s=20[/TWEET]

All of these comparisons of north vs south states and current covid spread totally ignore seasonality. We saw the South get hit hardest last summer. We won't know true affect on transmission until after this winter passes.

There are a growing number of heavily vaccinated regions that are experiencing substantial Covid transmission. Iceland, Israel, and the UK are some of the heavily vaxxed populations where transmission (not deaths) are high. San Francisco, where 90% of adults are vaccinated, is currently at all time highs in new cases. Cases are increasing across the Northeast US, including America's most vaxxed state, Vermont, where cases are already about 50% of the previous high in daily case figures.

IMO its tough to look at the above and not think that there is growing amount of evidence that indicates that vaccine mandates will do little to prevent transmission (not deaths). I think we are in for a rude awakening this winter across the northeast.

 

[IrishLax]

At best it'll be nearly as effective as Ivermectin, hopefully as safe, but cost thousands to fill. This is why they're funding the downplay of Ivermectin while this sits in development.

It's crazy that only like 10% of people see this, the number should be 99% in a society with access and sense like we should have.

Another peer reviewed study came out 5 days ago: https://www.cureus.com/articles/64807

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

Ivermectin does not appear to work, per every reputable study that has been done. They are still doing clinical trials. Cureus crowdsources is peer review process. Literally anyone can "peer review" an article on its network. Linking to a study on there and saying its been "peer reviewed" is not the same as a group of experts vetting a study for methodology and accuracy.

There have been 16 real studies of Ivermectin to date, and they have not yet shown it being anything other than the next hydrochloroquine (aka something that doesn't do what people say it does but still gets touted by grifters):

...group of experts analyzed 16 randomized controlled trials including a total of 2,407 inpatients and outpatients with COVID-19 and concluded that evidence of the drug’s ability to improve disease outcomes is of “very low certainty.” The group didn’t look into whether ivermectin can prevent COVID-19.

An ivermectin regimen may work to prevent COVID if taken proactively, but even in that case it would 1) be less effective than vaccines by orders of magnitude 2) likely require constant intake of the drug 3) likely have much worse long and short term side effects. So there's literally no point to it.

Fenofibrate, on the other hand, is a therapeutic you could take after getting infected to produce better outcomes. It serves a different purpose than a vaccine.

 

[IrishLax]

I was really excited the mrna vaccines were so effective with no big side effects early... the fact people could demagogue against that despite the fact it caused 1/6 the myocarditis of a covid infection (with less serious cases) makes it really unsurprising a mild decline in efficacy vs. Mild disease would cause the demagogues to come out in force.

Wait till we hear about most deaths being amongst the vaccinated in New England because everyone is vaccinated...

Yup, it's all about fun with numbers to con stupid people into believing whatever narrative a grifter wants to push. Anyone who is looking at differing outcomes between vaccinated vs non-vaccinated people right now and pretending the vaccine "doesn't work" simply lacks the cognitive ability to correctly process statistical information.

 

[TorontoGold]

Ivermectin does not appear to work, per every reputable study that has been done. They are still doing clinical trials. Cureus crowdsources is peer review process. Literally anyone can "peer review" an article on its network. Linking to a study on there and saying its been "peer reviewed" is not the same as a group of experts vetting a study for methodology and accuracy.

There have been 16 real studies of Ivermectin to date, and they have not yet shown it being anything other than the next hydrochloroquine (aka something that doesn't do what people say it does but still gets touted by grifters):

An ivermectin regimen may work to prevent COVID if taken proactively, but even in that case it would 1) be less effective than vaccines by orders of magnitude 2) likely require constant intake of the drug 3) likely have much worse long and short term side effects. So there's literally no point to it.

Fenofibrate, on the other hand, is a therapeutic you could take after getting infected to produce better outcomes. It serves a different purpose than a vaccine.

(If ivermectin was this god-like drug)

Logistically, wouldn't it be a nightmare to get ivermectin to people to produce a materially impact on the COVID battle? The process of having to go to your doctor, to being checked out before obtaining a prescription would destroy wait times, no?

Also, if it was a miracle drug, wouldn't the big Pharma companies all produce this and try to lobby governments around the world to push this for COVID treatments? In a capitalist society a profit motive would get things done the fastest, and the lack of movement from reputable sources should be the first sniff test that would fail.

 

[NorthDakota]

(If ivermectin was this god-like drug)

Logistically, wouldn't it be a nightmare to get ivermectin to people to produce a materially impact on the COVID battle? The process of having to go to your doctor, to being checked out before obtaining a prescription would destroy wait times, no?

Also, if it was a miracle drug, wouldn't the big Pharma companies all produce this and try to lobby governments around the world to push this for COVID treatments? In a capitalist society a profit motive would get things done the fastest, and the lack of movement from reputable sources should be the first sniff test that would fail.

My understanding was big pharma specifically wouldn't want ivermectin to work because it's a generic drug. Apparently generics don't make much money.

Whether that's true or not, I have no idea.

 

[TorontoGold]

My understanding was big pharma specifically wouldn't want ivermectin to work because it's a generic drug. Apparently generics don't make much money.

Whether that's true or not, I have no idea.

Isn't something better than nothing? I have no idea on licensing of production for vaccines, but if you're ACME Pharma Inc. you aren't able to produce one of the vaccines and you produce ivermectin for animals, theoretically you would be able to shift production to make it consumable for humans and make something rather than nothing?

Also if you're a publicly listed company, the good press/momentum gained from putting out this life saving drug would give your stock a huge boost.

Of course this is without knowing the margins made on a generic/legals around production.

 

[IrishLax]

My understanding was big pharma specifically wouldn't want ivermectin to work because it's a generic drug. Apparently generics don't make much money.

Whether that's true or not, I have no idea.

I do think that some people overstate the "big pharma" conspiracy. It's absolutely true that they are out to make money and would steer people away from generics if at all possible. But they simply do not have the power to withhold information or approval of generics that may work in treating COVID.

The Ivermectin stuff really started in earnest in February where a small but totally legitimate study was done in Bengladesh. It showed a small increase in recovery times (10 days versus 13 days) for patients treated with a 5-day regimen of Ivermectin. Then some meta-analysis was promising, so people started studying Ivermectin in earnest in late-spring and through the summer. Unfortunately, the 16 major trials done on it to date have not produced promising results.

Most other stuff that people share as "evidence" that Ivermectin works is either anecdotal or not a real clinical trial.

NIH is currently studying a bunch of available generics, including Ivermectin, just to see if they work. If there is a generic that is effective as a therapeutic then they're going to find it. Maybe Ivermectin will work great and a major study will prove it. The conspiracy theory angle is people claiming that a miracle drug is being suppressed and withheld from the public by the nefarious "big pharma." They said the same shit for MONTHS about hydroxychloroquine... and then just quietly moved on. Because it doesn't work. It wasn't some huge conspiracy.

I wouldn't be shocked if Ivermectin has some positive impact on outcomes, because there is a study that shows that, but you've also got remdesvir and steroids that improve outcomes significantly relative to placebos, so.... yeah. We'll see, but the data right now from real trials and real studies has not been positive.

 

[Irish#1]

I do think that some people overstate the "big pharma" conspiracy. It's absolutely true that they are out to make money and would steer people away from generics if at all possible. But they simply do not have the power to withhold information or approval of generics that may work in treating COVID.

That's an understatement. lol

Even if there was some shady dealings going on, the fact of the matter is word would eventually leak out along with some emails and documents showing pharma company ABC intentionally did this. The repercussions from the public, FDA, media, etc. would cripple the company along with the lawsuits that would follow.

 

[Trait Expectations]

Have you read anyone else's links/info? I'm curious if you really care to exchange ideas or if you just want to defend you're already-well-established position? I still haven't seen you reply to my last couple posts. I can dig them up if you'd like?

IrishRazor82

bump for the 4th time....

 

[IrishRazor82]

Ivermectin does not appear to work, per every reputable study that has been done. They are still doing clinical trials. Cureus crowdsources is peer review process. Literally anyone can "peer review" an article on its network. Linking to a study on there and saying its been "peer reviewed" is not the same as a group of experts vetting a study for methodology and accuracy.

There have been 16 real studies of Ivermectin to date, and they have not yet shown it being anything other than the next hydrochloroquine (aka something that doesn't do what people say it does but still gets touted by grifters):

An ivermectin regimen may work to prevent COVID if taken proactively, but even in that case it would 1) be less effective than vaccines by orders of magnitude 2) likely require constant intake of the drug 3) likely have much worse long and short term side effects. So there's literally no point to it.

Fenofibrate, on the other hand, is a therapeutic you could take after getting infected to produce better outcomes. It serves a different purpose than a vaccine.

With all due respect, uou lost any topical credibility with me when you say "no reputable sources", and it gets worse when you argue the long term side effects of Ivermectin are likely worse than the vaccines. This shows you've ignored the meteanalysis and know nothing about the history (and safety) of Ivermectin. There's no way to even dance on a stance like this, it's just plainly wrong. And being ignorant on the topic is fine, everyone is at some point, but just speaking as if you know safety of Ivermectin when it's one of the safest drugs of all time rules you out going forward.

1) Wrong. It was more readily available than the vaccines from day one, especially thinking globally.
2) The majority of the studies (which you clearly are unaware), require one pill per week.
3) Arguably the worst comment in this thread given the confidence of which you say it.

Moving on, can this guy replace Faucci yesterday? He's put more thought into this 6 minutes than Faucci has in all of his reverse decisions.

https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/sta...474336769?s=19

 

[IrishRazor82]

bump for the 4th time....

Yes. Which one would you like to discuss? Time is precious, no one's going to respond to everything in a thread.

You already pointed out the study on 37 year olds for Ivermectin, and I gave a lengthy response why studying any effect on someone who's at virtually no risk of death is child's play. You could have given them skittles and they'd be have the same result (no death) and spun it as "no impact".

Do you have a good anything you'd like to put forward?

 

[TorontoGold]

Yes. Which one would you like to discuss? Time is precious, no one's going to respond to everything in a thread.

You already pointed out the study on 37 year olds for Ivermectin, and I gave a lengthy response why studying any effect on someone who's at virtually no risk of death is child's play. You could have given them skittles and they'd be have the same result (no death) and spun it as "no impact".

Do you have a good anything you'd like to put forward?

Your source - https://www.cureus.com/articles/64807 had only 4.2% of the participants older than 50 years old. Which amounted to 148 individuals, and the majority of participants 85.7% were 39 or younger.

Better yet, when you and Abmiller were upset at the article that showed ivermectin had no impact you said that age was the biggest factor and you guys dismissed it because "well obviously when a study only has young people it will show no impact".

Calling others "ignorant" is rich.

 

[Irishize]

Do you think the vaccines are effective against other strains? Because that's obviously not true for Delta.

And no, the meteanalysis is a combination of 18 studies from around the globe. And while it's too early to say it's prevention against all strains, it has proven successful against P1, Brazil variant, and one other that I cannot name off of the top of my head.

Note the delta was not around when the 18 study paper was reviewed, so I can't say if it's effective against Delta, but it hadn't met a variant it didn't prevent as of the time the paper was written.

New England Journal of Medicine just published the study that shows the Pfizer vaccine is 88% effective against the Delta variant.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891