Coronavirus math
Quote: billryanAs far as I can tell, the people pushing the FDA is in bed with big pharma almost always also subscribe to other conspiracy theories such as the vaccine makes you magnetic, the vaccine comes from aborted fetuses, the election was stolen, the Pope is part of the illuminati and so on and so forth. I suppose there is a chance they are wrong on everything else but got this one right. That's the ticket.
link to original post
Well, I'll just say that I've worked in the federal government and have a number of friends in it and I see how large businesses work with federal agencies. The agency staff can have their careers effectively ended by a congressman and agencies get their operating budgets from congress. So when there is big money involved it is a pretty rough business. No agency wants to fight with congressmen, and I have personally been aware of some pretty brutal phone calls between a congressman and senior agency officials that have resulted in some astonishing, indefensible decisions. So, this is not akin to believing illumanati theories, its just how federal government works.
Quote: billryanI've worked for the Feds, both in the military and for the Department of Commerce and that is how bureaucracies work. It's usually not corruption. Thinking that because an agency is partially funded by user fees means it is corrupt is just plain wrong and would seem to indicate a lack of understanding of how government is funded.
link to original post
Lol.
I guess Congress doesn't understand how government funding works either.
They decided to investigate what is going on with the FDA as well.
https://www.statnews.com/2021/09/02/congress-demands-documents-fda-biogens-alzheimers-drug/
From the article.
Quote: gordonm888link to original post
Well, I'll just say that I've worked in the federal government and have a number of friends in it and I see how large businesses work with federal agencies. The agency staff can have their careers effectively ended by a congressman and agencies get their operating budgets from congress. So when there is big money involved it is a pretty rough business. No agency wants to fight with congressmen, and I have personally been aware of some pretty brutal phone calls between a congressman and senior agency officials that have resulted in some astonishing, indefensible decisions. So, this is not akin to believing illumanati theories, its just how federal government works.
On one level though, this is how it is supposed to work. You get regulators who have never been on the other side of things and do not get how business works. When I was in pest control I was lucky as the guy who was my state regulator had previously had my job at a competitor. So when he would visit for an inspection he knew what was what. As long as I was not trying to scam him he dealt fairly with me. Had he been some lifetime government type it would have been more of "well the reg says this so why is it not done this way to the letter?"
It is what Trump was after in trying to get industry vets to regulate those industries. Most businessmen are not trying to outright evade any kind of regulation. They just want it to be reasonable and serve a purpose. The way to do it is to call the industry players in and explain the goal, the goal being reasonable, and get input to try to reach the goal.
I will use California as an example. I have been on training calls where an instructor had to stop mid-sentence because we were at the 5 hour mark and the people in CA were mandated for lunch. There has to be a better way to acheive the goal of a lunch break than a hard mandate like that, and different industries will differ. Now take that out for anything you want to regulate and you can see why there should be input from industry,
Quote: darkozQuote: billryanI've worked for the Feds, both in the military and for the Department of Commerce and that is how bureaucracies work. It's usually not corruption. Thinking that because an agency is partially funded by user fees means it is corrupt is just plain wrong and would seem to indicate a lack of understanding of how government is funded.
link to original post
Lol.
I guess Congress doesn't understand how government funding works either.
They decided to investigate what is going on with the FDA as well.
https://www.statnews.com/2021/09/02/congress-demands-documents-fda-biogens-alzheimers-drug/
From the article.
I rest my case.
Quote: billryanQuote: darkozQuote: billryanI've worked for the Feds, both in the military and for the Department of Commerce and that is how bureaucracies work. It's usually not corruption. Thinking that because an agency is partially funded by user fees means it is corrupt is just plain wrong and would seem to indicate a lack of understanding of how government is funded.
link to original post
Lol.
I guess Congress doesn't understand how government funding works either.
They decided to investigate what is going on with the FDA as well.
https://www.statnews.com/2021/09/02/congress-demands-documents-fda-biogens-alzheimers-drug/
From the article.
I rest my case.link to original post
Sorry about thàt. Better luck next time.
One can show that kind of proof with just about any large organization with a lot of people involved that's been around long enough.
Quote: rxwineWhat does specific cases of possible corruption have anything to do with another specific case?
link to original post
One can show that kind of proof with just about any large organization with a lot of people involved that's been around long enough.
No. He showed that members in Congress want to know more information about an FDA decision. Isn't that proof enough that the entire FDA is corrupt and responsible for murdering hundreds of thousands of Americans? What more could you possibly need?
Quote: billryanQuote: rxwineWhat does specific cases of possible corruption have anything to do with another specific case?
link to original post
One can show that kind of proof with just about any large organization with a lot of people involved that's been around long enough.
No. He showed that members in Congress want to know more information about an FDA decision. Isn't that proof enough that the entire FDA is corrupt and responsible for murdering hundreds of thousands of Americans? What more could you possibly need?link to original post
I'm glad you agree.
See, It's okay to admit when you are wrong
When STAT publishes stories by Feuerstien bashing CyDy and lemonlabob, it is a rag with an agenda.
When oz finds a STAT story that he somehow thinks makes his case, it is an informed source.
Quote: billryanOn April 16, 2020, an article by STAT national biotech columnist Adam Feuerstein leaked early, incomplete results Gilead Sciences clinical trial of remdesivir for COVID-19 without permission from the company.[9] The title of this exclusive story was "Early peek at data on Gilead coronavirus drug suggests patients are responding to treatment."[10] Gilead shares jumped higher in after-hours trading immediately after the report published.[11] In a statement to CNBC, a University of Chicago spokesperson said, “Partial data from an ongoing clinical trial is by definition incomplete and should never be used to draw conclusions about the safety or efficacy of a potential treatment that is under investigation."[11] Texas Democrat Rep. Lloyd Doggett, chair of the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, called for an investigation of how STAT obtained the leaked video. Rep. Doggett, an attorney, noted that "providing information that's designed to impact the stock market is not something that is permitted under federal securities law."[9]
link to original post
When STAT publishes stories by Feuerstien bashing CyDy and lemonlabob, it is a rag with an agenda.
When oz finds a STAT story that he somehow thinks makes his case, it is an informed source.
The fact that Bill can't tell the difference between an opinion published on Stat about a biotech and facts about an action of Congress being reported on Stat is telling.
I, of course, can tell the difference.
That Bill even follows Adam Feuerstien is ridiculous.
The guy is giving views on Biotech with a political science degree. Yeah that makes sense. Not.
Quote: FastEddieOnly Math I care about is 95% of recent hospitalizations and 99% of deaths due to virus are unvaccinated.
link to original post
SAY NO MORE
Welcome to the forum FastEddie. In this thread, which is the ‘Coronavirus math thread’, your post is the perfect summary. About half of Americans are fully vaccinated, and about half aren’t. 99% of deaths are in unvaccinated, and 1% in those vaccinated. Given the last sentence, it is hard to imagine how it comes to be that 100+ million Americans are that freaking stupid to not be vaccinated!
No Vax? No Visit!
Quote: Miami MD Tells PatientsThis is a public health emergency — the health of the public takes priority over the rights of any given individual in this situation, It appears that there is a lack of selflessness and concern for the burden on the health and well-being of our society from our encounters.
Unvaccinated? Call to schedule a video consult with the doctor. Don't come to the doctor's office, filled with people trying to help overcome the pandemic, OK?
Quote: billryanI've worked for the Feds, both in the military and for the Department of Commerce and that is how bureaucracies work. It's usually not corruption. Thinking that because an agency is partially funded by user fees means it is corrupt is just plain wrong and would seem to indicate a lack of understanding of how government is funded.
link to original post
Boldface added
Bill, I never mentioned that the FDA is partially funded by user fees and never used that in my post as a basis for what I was saying. Why don't you actually read the posts before snottily denouncing them? This is your trademark tactic of attacking a post for something that it didn't say and then slurring the poster with words like "and would seem to indicate a lack of understanding . . . "
Maybe we should create a betting pool for how many times in September Billryan will do this. I suspect the high numbers will go quickly.
Quote: gordonm888Quote: billryanI've worked for the Feds, both in the military and for the Department of Commerce and that is how bureaucracies work. It's usually not corruption. Thinking that because an agency is partially funded by user fees means it is corrupt is just plain wrong and would seem to indicate a lack of understanding of how government is funded.
link to original post
Boldface added
Bill, I never mentioned that the FDA is partially funded by user fees and never used that in my post as a basis for what I was saying. Why don't you actually read the posts before snottily denouncing them? This is your trademark tactic of attacking a post for something that it didn't say and then slurring the poster with words like "and would seem to indicate a lack of understanding . . . "
Maybe we should create a betting pool for how many times in September Billryan will do this. I suspect the high numbers will go quickly.link to original post
Gordon
I mentioned that FDA is partially funded by user fees.
Bill purposefully didn't quote me so he could not be suspended for what you recognized as a slur on the poster.
Even though it's clearly an attack and recognized
Maybe a pool on how many times you misunderstand someones post might be in order.
Quote: billryanHow could anyone read this thread and not see oz's comments on the FDA and corruption?
link to original post
One problem with the site is when answering a post you are brought to the last page where your post is now newest.
It causes a hop skip over other posts in the interim.
I often find myself seeing someone quoted and having to backtrack a few pages to see the full conversation.
That's why it's important to quote who you are responding to
Quote: billryanWhy must you think everything is about you? Anyone reading this thread would see oz repeatedly mentioned the FDA funding as implying corruption.
link to original post
Maybe a pool on how many times you misunderstand someones post might be in order.
1. ecause your post immediately followed mine, and followed it by 8 minutes.
2. Because I ended my post with "Well, I'll just say that I've worked in the federal government" and ended it with "So, this is not akin to believing illumanati theories, its just how federal government works."
And you responded 8 minutes later with this opening statement "I've worked for the Feds, both in the military and for the Department of Commerce and that is how bureaucracies work." and with this closing statement "and would seem to indicate a lack of understanding of how government is funded."
3. Because my previous post introduced the issue of big pharma influence on the FDA by ending:
Quote: gordonm88So, there is a growing conspiracy theory that the FDA is in bed with certain pharmaceutical companies. Not certain about all aspects of that theory, but there may be something to it. There is an enormous amount of money at stake, and money corrupts.
and was immediately followed on the thread 14 minutes later by your attack post;
Quote: billryanAs far as I can tell, the people pushing the FDA is in bed with big pharma almost always also subscribe to other conspiracy theories such as the vaccine makes you magnetic, the vaccine comes from aborted fetuses, the election was stolen, the Pope is part of the illuminati and so on and so forth. I suppose there is a chance they are wrong on everything else but got this one right. That's the ticket.
which shamelessly suggests that because I claim that there may be something to the theory that FDA is in bed with big pharma that people like me almost always also subscribe to "the vaccine makes you magnetic" "the vaccines comes from aborted fetuses" "the Pope is part of the Illumanati" and (objectionably bringing up a political issue) that "the election was stolen" .... and concludes that people like me "are wrong on everything."
This, again, is the time-honored billryan tactic of tarnishing posters with things that they never said in order to make them look silly or stupid. Your tactic is not explicitly against the rules of this forum, but don't expect me to congratulate you on the honorable and civil way that you debate with others in this forum.
Quote: billryanWhy must you think everything is about you? Anyone reading this thread would see oz repeatedly mentioned the FDA funding as implying corruption.
link to original post
Maybe a pool on how many times you misunderstand someones post might be in order.
1. Because your post immediately followed mine, and followed it by 8 minutes.
2. Because I started my post with "Well, I'll just say that I've worked in the federal government" and ended it with "So, this is not akin to believing illumanati theories, its just how federal government works."
And you responded 8 minutes later with this opening statement "I've worked for the Feds, both in the military and for the Department of Commerce and that is how bureaucracies work." and with this closing statement "and would seem to indicate a lack of understanding of how government is funded."
3. Because my previous post introduced the issue of big pharma influence on the FDA by ending:
Quote: gordonm888So, there is a growing conspiracy theory that the FDA is in bed with certain pharmaceutical companies. Not certain about all aspects of that theory, but there may be something to it. There is an enormous amount of money at stake, and money corrupts.
and was immediately followed on this thread 14 minutes later by your attack post;
Quote: billryanAs far as I can tell, the people pushing the FDA is in bed with big pharma almost always also subscribe to other conspiracy theories such as the vaccine makes you magnetic, the vaccine comes from aborted fetuses, the election was stolen, the Pope is part of the illuminati and so on and so forth. I suppose there is a chance they are wrong on everything else but got this one right. That's the ticket.
which shamelessly suggests that because I claim that there may be something to the theory that FDA is in bed with big pharma that people like me almost always also subscribe to "the vaccine makes you magnetic" "the vaccines comes from aborted fetuses" "the Pope is part of the Illumanati" and (objectionably bringing up a political issue) that "the election was stolen" .... and concludes that people like me "are wrong on everything."
This, again, is the time-honored billryan tactic of tarnishing posters with things that they never said in order to make them look silly or stupid. Your tactic is not explicitly against the rules of this forum, but don't expect me to congratulate you on the honorable and civil way that you debate with others in this forum.
I rarely respond to anything you have to say because you tend to posts things that just don't interest me. Its not personal, you just post about subjects that don't interest me.
How is it that anyone is allowed make posts suggesting the federal government conspired to kill a half million Americans on a forum that doesn't allow politics?
Quote: ChumpChangeJust noticed a lot of football games with sold-out stadiums and no masks & no social distancing. So super-spreader events at every such football game. Will Draft Kings become uninhabitable because of all the stadium fans making their bets there, or are they entirely different people who just watch the games at home or on screens?
link to original post
Evidently I need to make clear that even though my response followed a post by CC, I was in fact responding to a different post. For the people who might have been confused.
I suggest that when you're addressing someone, or referring to someone's comments, that you either quote them, or address them by name, so it's always clear to whom you're referring. Adds clarity, helps prevent misunderstandings, prevents the ability for a malicious poster to claim he was talking about someone else, and thus can't be accused of that, etc.Quote: billryanI was responding to someone elses post., just as you were.
Quote: ChumpChangeI'm sorry. I just dipped into the thread without reading what was going on because I was too busy writing a post.
link to original post
Shame on you. Best pay attention before someone tries to take you to the woodshed.
Quote: MichaelBluejayI suggest that when you're addressing someone, or referring to someone's comments, that you either quote them, or address them by name, so it's always clear to whom you're referring. Adds clarity, helps prevent misunderstandings, prevents the ability for a malicious poster to claim he was talking about someone else, and thus can't be accused of that, etc.
link to original post
The problem with that is then the nonsense just gets reposted. I wasn't quoting anyone.
As far as I can tell, the people pushing the FDA is in bed with big pharma almost always also subscribe to other conspiracy theories such as the vaccine makes you magnetic, the vaccine comes from aborted fetuses, the election was stolen, the Pope is part of the illuminati and so on and so forth. I suppose there is a chance they are wrong on everything else but got this one right. That's the ticket.
link to original post
Then this was the next post:
Well, I'll just say that I've worked in the federal government and have a number of friends in it and I see how large businesses work with federal agencies. The agency staff can have their careers effectively ended by a congressman and agencies get their operating budgets from congress. So when there is big money involved it is a pretty rough business. No agency wants to fight with congressmen, and I have personally been aware of some pretty brutal phone calls between a congressman and senior agency officials that have resulted in some astonishing, indefensible decisions. So, this is not akin to believing illumanati theories, its just how federal government works.
So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy
Looks to me like I made the post before our moderator responded, so why he would think I was referring to him escapes me.
You referred to my post selectively. I said quote *or* address the person you’re talking to. You said “you” n the post of yours I quoted. Who is “you”? (Rhetorical question, the point is, make it clear to whom you’re talking or referring.Quote: billryanThe problem with that is then the nonsense just gets reposted. I wasn't quoting anyone.
Quote: MichaelBluejayYou referred to my post selectively. I said quote *or* address the person you’re talking to. You said “you” n the post of yours I quoted. Who is “you”? (Rhetorical question, the point is, make it clear to whom you’re talking or referring.
link to original post
If you don't know who the person is referring to, and haven't been interacting with the person in the thread, why would you assume it is addressed to you? Perhaps you might not know who it is addressed to, but having a fit because you think it must be about you is silly.
Because it *seems* to be.Quote: billryanIf you don't know who the person is referring to, and haven't been interacting with the person in the thread, why would you assume it is addressed to you?
It's not. It's often a reasonable conclusion.Quote: billyranPerhaps you might not know who it is addressed to, but having a fit because you think it must be about you is silly.
Don't blame others for your failure to be specific.
Quote: MichaelBluejayBecause it *seems* to be.
link to original post
It's not. It's often a reasonable conclusion.
Don't blame others for your failure to be specific.
Got it.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/moderna-combo-single-dose-covidflu-booster-what-you-need-to-know/ar-AAOgGRa?ocid=uxbndlbing
Quote: rsactuaryI assume that the booster has to be the same brand as the initial shot(s)? Any word on studying if you can mix them?
link to original post
I was told you can get a different brand but as of now that is not what they will be doing.
Earlier in this thread, I showed how 1 in 5 Americans has or had COVID if there are 66% more cases than reported, comprising people who were/are asymptomatic and never got tested. If that were true, that would mean an even 1% mortality rate.
Quote: MichaelBluejayWe recently hit a milestone: 1 in 500 Americans have died from COVID.
link to original post
Earlier in this thread, I showed how 1 in 5 Americans has or had COVID if there are 66% more cases than reported, comprising people who were/are asymptomatic and never got tested. If that were true, that would mean an even 1% mortality rate.
One thing to check is how many more Americans are dieing per month/year than in precious co-pandemic years. People die. If 1% of the population doesn't die every year than the average age will eventually start to exceed 100.
Quote: MichaelBluejayWe recently hit a milestone: 1 in 500 Americans have died from COVID.
link to original post
Earlier in this thread, I showed how 1 in 5 Americans has or had COVID if there are 66% more cases than reported, comprising people who were/are asymptomatic and never got tested. If that were true, that would mean an even 1% mortality rate.
This is where the covid deniers will cry that is a 99% survival rate so who cares.
I saw a news segment showing many survivors whose lives were changed.
One girl, age 13 I believe caught it. She was studying music and was thinking of a career in the orchestra. Now her lungs have been so ravaged she can't get the breath to play her instrument.
I'm sure she will be very happy to know Covid isn't that serious since 99% of people survive. Yeah, right!
Quote: darkozQuote: MichaelBluejayWe recently hit a milestone: 1 in 500 Americans have died from COVID.
link to original post
Earlier in this thread, I showed how 1 in 5 Americans has or had COVID if there are 66% more cases than reported, comprising people who were/are asymptomatic and never got tested. If that were true, that would mean an even 1% mortality rate.
This is where the covid deniers will cry that is a 99% survival rate so who cares.
I saw a news segment showing many survivors whose lives were changed.
One girl, age 13 I believe caught it. She was studying music and was thinking of a career in the orchestra. Now her lungs have been so ravaged she can't get the breath to play her instrument.
I'm sure she will be very happy to know Covid isn't that serious since 99% of people survive. Yeah, right!link to original post
What's better than a slow agonizing death, breathing 3 times faster than normal trying to get enough oxygen, feeling like a band is constricting across your chest or your lungs on fire, with unrecognizable strangers with goggles and bland drape-like clothing occasionally keeping you functioning. At least until they send you into the realm of the semi-dead, where you slide into the final moments unconsciously.
Whereas a vaccine is scary. .
Well, about that, there's also the "background death rate" from COVID, people who aren't dying from COVID itself, but who are dying because they've put off medical care, hospitals full, etc. It's significant. Here are figures on Our World in Data and The Economist.Quote: gordonm888One thing to check is how many more Americans are dieing per month/year than in precious co-pandemic years.
When you don't check out the data and do not know that the formula for humans is significantly different.Quote: billryanWho needs a vaccine when you can get deworming meds at the local feed supply.
link to original post
Quote: SanchoPanzaWhen you don't check out the data and do not know that the formula for humans is significantly different.link to original postQuote: billryanWho needs a vaccine when you can get deworming meds at the local feed supply.
link to original post
NIH on Ivermectin source
"Ivermectin is a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved antiparasitic drug that is used to treat several neglected tropical diseases, including onchocerciasis, helminthiases, and scabies.1 It is also being evaluated for its potential to reduce the rate of malaria transmission by killing mosquitoes that feed on treated humans and livestock.2 For these indications, ivermectin has been widely used and is generally well tolerated.1,3 Ivermectin is not approved by the FDA for the treatment of any viral infection.
Proposed Mechanism of Action and Rationale for Use in Patients With COVID-19
Reports from in vitro studies suggest that ivermectin acts by inhibiting the host importin alpha/beta-1 nuclear transport proteins, which are part of a key intracellular transport process that viruses hijack to enhance infection by suppressing the host’s antiviral response.4,5 In addition, ivermectin docking may interfere with the attachment of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein to the human cell membrane.6 Ivermectin is thought to be a host-directed agent, which may be the basis for its broad-spectrum activity in vitro against the viruses that cause dengue, Zika, HIV, and yellow fever.4,7-9 Despite this in vitro activity, no clinical trials have reported a clinical benefit for ivermectin in patients with these viruses. Some studies of ivermectin have also reported potential anti-inflammatory properties, which have been postulated to be beneficial in people with COVID-19.10-12
Some observational cohorts and clinical trials have evaluated the use of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. Data from some of these studies can be found in Table 2c.
Recommendation
There is insufficient evidence for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19."
*****************************************
My wife, who is a registered nurse, is on several social forums for nurses. Her take from these forums is that nurses across the country are using Ivermectin to treat Covid in their families and friends and are reporting to each other that it is effective. That is not the same as paying the FDA multiple hundreds of millions to conduct a multi-year study. But note that the NIH says that there is not enough information to recommend for or against using Ivermectin and has identified a mechanism that logically would inhibit Covid.
There is additional NIH discussion and scientific information in the link provided above.
- - - -
While anecdotal evidence may suggest that ivermectin is beneficial for COVID-19, high-quality evidence from clinical trials is lacking. A meta-analysis posted as a preprint on August 21, 2021 showed that, while ivermectin appeared to reduce COVID-19-related mortality, decrease hospitalization, increase viral clearance, and improve symptoms when all identified trials were considered - including those classified as having high or some risk of bias (such as inappropriate randomization of the trial participants and lack of blinding, which can influence estimates of effects) - analysis of results from only the studies with low risk of bias showed that ivermectin is not likely to improve most of these clinical outcomes. Furthermore, the reviewers noted that the evidence of benefit of ivermectin for COVID-19 prevention was even less clear, as none of the studies could be classified as low risk of bias, and results from trials with high or some risk of bias showed that ivermectin either reduced or increased symptomatic infections among people who were exposed (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.19.21262304v1.full.pdf). [emphasis added]
- - - -
https://www.consumerlab.com/answers/comparison-of-covid-19-vaccines/covid-19-vaccines/
Quote: gordonm888
My wife, who is a registered nurse, is on several social forums for nurses. Her take from these forums is that nurses across the country are using Ivermectin to treat Covid in their families and friends and are reporting to each other that it is effective. That is not the same as paying the FDA multiple hundreds of millions to conduct a multi-year study. But note that the NIH says that there is not enough information to recommend for or against using Ivermectin and has identified a mechanism that logically would inhibit Covid.
How would you know if it is a success if you don’t know if your case is going to be mild to moderate anyway? You could feel pretty sick for a few days or a week, or barely have symptoms.
Quote: rxwineHow would you know if it is a success if you don’t know if your case is going to be mild to moderate anyway? You could feel pretty sick for a few days or a week, or barely have symptoms.
link to original post
They aren't going by patients observation.
There are measurable biomarkers
Elevated interleukin-6, macrophages, IL-6, Cytokine levels.
It's not 'Hey, how you feel today" measurements.
