The Coronavirus Thread

[Cunt]

https://youtu.be/pQiv8I9Peqk?t=499

He talks about the Munk debate and the cancellation of his planned discussion.

His 'would-be interlocuter' backed out of the debate. The 8 to 9 minute mark, if my timestamp didn't work.

[rainbow]

I already knew both possibilities were under discussion.

The audio stuff I've heard suggests that lab leak is still not dismissed as a possibility. Neither is natural origin. Most difficult to dismiss would be a blend of the two hypothesis's.

Did the FDA remove the restrictions on HCQ? I thought it was back in regular service as a medicine, but the recent jokes upthread make me think it might be still a 'bad drug'.

Sure be awkward if Trump was right about it, after all that teasing...

Nonsense. Who told you hydroxychloroquine is a bad drug?

Punch them in the nose for lying to you.

Any and every single molecule has the potential to treat disease. Some may only get you cured by killing you.

[Tero]

Lab incident possibility is at 50 minutes, CDC lab and Wuhan virus bee's nest lab



there is nothing, no lead from lab escape

[Joe]

I don't know which of his opinions you think is controversial, but remember, it may be my misunderstanding you have based some of that on.

He's pretty reasonable.

I haven't listened to the whole podcast yet, since it's longer than usual, but the controversy appears to be over whether to implement this doc's treatment protocol without the usual clinical trials.

Not being a doctor or scientist, I found an article that discusses the issue better than I can. Here are some excerpts I think sum up the disagreement.

Here's the reason you've been hearing more about ivermectin lately: the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC).

The group -- led by three physicians with a knack for making headlines -- posted its own review and meta-analysis of the global ivermectin literature on its website.

In early December, these doctors held a press conference, and one testified at a Senate hearing on early treatments for COVID-19.

They maintain that ivermectin has a special combination of anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties that make it useful preventively and for treating early and late-stage illness.

Too good to be true? Not in the mind of FLCCC co-leader Paul Marik, MD, chief of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, who co-authored the review and meta-analysis based mainly on studies from outside the U.S.

"People are dying," Marik said during a phone interview. "We treat patients at the bedside. We don't have the ivory tower syndrome where you tell people what to do though you have no idea what you're doing."

Group members, who are mostly critical care physicians, don't see a need for more data and argue it would be unethical to give placebo to patients given the established safety of ivermectin. But that's raising more than a few eyebrows among others in the field.

The counter argument.

Steven Joffe, MD, MPH, a medical ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, said he doesn't believe clinicians "should be lowering our standards of evidence because we're in a pandemic."

"This group should be advocating strongly for a large, generalizable randomized trial if they believe so strongly in the efficacy of ivermectin," Joffe said. "If in fact it is effective, the only way to convince the clinical and scientific community and allow patients all over the world to benefit is to prove the case in such a trial."

"With good data and safety monitoring, if the benefits are as overwhelming as they claim, the trial could be stopped early on the basis of interim data and the treatment rapidly instituted," Joffe added.
,,,
Zain Chagla, MD, an infectious diseases physician at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, reviewed each of the trials in Hill's review in a Twitter thread. He called the overall evidence "very low grade" and was also unhappy that Hill disseminated it as a video.

"We always want to see these things published, rather than me walking through a video, pulling these studies myself," Chagla told MedPage Today.

He said if there was indeed a signal for efficacy, he would have expected ivermectin to be rolled into the SOLIDARITY or RECOVERY study by now.

"I want it to work, but at the same time, this whole thing feels like déjà vu of the first two months of the pandemic when we weren't decided about hydroxychloroquine," Chagla said. "We don't want to come around a year later saying it didn't help and it may have hurt."

Definitely a controversy, but what strikes me as funny is Weinstein's attitude.

Isn't he the "follow the science guy?" Conducting clinical trials is the scientific approach, right?

[Cunt]

One point I thought significant, was the difference between 'whether to implement this doc's treatment protocol without the usual clinical trials.'

When considering ivermectin (or HCQ), the bar is set quite high.

But for the various vaccines and similar stuff, we haven't got the time to do those trials.

Who would win, if one side was 'scamming'? As in, if these docs are cheating the world with a fake cure, how will they profit?

[NineBerry]

But for the various vaccines and similar stuff, we haven't got the time to do those trials.

Nonsense. All vaccines went through three phases of trials. With tens of thousands of probands for each vaccine.

[Joe]

One point I thought significant, was the difference between 'whether to implement this doc's treatment protocol without the usual clinical trials.'

When considering ivermectin (or HCQ), the bar is set quite high.

But for the various vaccines and similar stuff, we haven't got the time to do those trials.

Who would win, if one side was 'scamming'? As in, if these docs are cheating the world with a fake cure, how will they profit?

Beats me. Since I don't know these people, I'm willing to believe they are all sincere and that the disagreement is honest.

On that basis, all you have is the quality of their arguments. If I look at that alone, the docs are making an argument from authority which is a logical fallacy. They could still be right, but their argument is weaker than if it were backed by clinical trials.

[Cunt]

But for the various vaccines and similar stuff, we haven't got the time to do those trials.

Nonsense. All vaccines went through three phases of trials. With tens of thousands of probands for each vaccine.

If the drug is useless, the vaccines win major profits (as expected)

If it is an effective treatment or preventative measure, then...um...who holds the patents on Ivermectin? They stand to profit in that case.

[Tero]

There are no useful antivirals for Covid or any coronavirus. Or for flu. When the virus mutate as quickly as they do, the antivirals for a specific viral enzyme of protein would be useless in a couple of years. HIV is not like that.

[Cunt]

Fauci learning about the lab leak hypothesis, and doing the 'PR'.

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/emai ... es-thanked

The emails with Fauci show that Daszak had already dismissed the lab leak notion nearly a year before that ‘investigation’ began, and despite other researchers saying it looked potentially engineered.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this is that Daszak was one of the lead “investigators” on the WHO panel tasked with looking into the origins of the pandemic.

Is it any surprise that this guy, whose organisation has shovelled at least $600,000 to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in the past few years to play around with coronaviruses inside the lab, determined within 3 hours of visiting the lab in February 2021 that there was ‘nothing to see here’?

#faucididntkillhimself

[Tero]

Fauci bla bla
Lab release bla bla

You are stuck again.

[Scot Dutchy]

We are under officially 100 per 100,000 new cases per day. More restrictions are being lifted.

[JimC]

We are under officially 100 per 100,000 new cases per day. More restrictions are being lifted.

We are having around 4 cases per day in a state with a population of over 6 and a half million. Restrictions may be ended by Friday. Perhaps...

[pErvinalia]

Dictator Dan must be stopped!

[JimC]

Dictator Dan must be stopped!

He's still at home, recovering from a fall...

Now we have Dictator James!