3083 replies to this topic

[DanCG]

via https://www.fightaging.org/

 

 

 

Senolytics reduce coronavirus-related mortality in old mice 

 

https://science.scie...science.abe4832

 

Fisetin

[geo12the]

From Nature news:

 

NEWS

16 June 2020

Update 23 June 2020

Coronavirus breakthrough: dexamethasone is first drug shown to save lives

 

In a large trial, a cheap and widely available steroid cut deaths by one-third among patients critically ill with COVID-19.

 

https://www.nature.c...586-020-01824-5

[Advocatus Diaboli]

geo12the, the article you link to in post #2732 is superannuated. Since its publication in June 2020 numerous studies have demonstrated the efficacy of both HCQ and Ivermectin, either alone or in protocols with other agents. Perhaps in June 2020 dexamethasone had some singular relevance, "first drug shown to save lives", but one wonders how many positive articles on HCQ and Ivermectin were suppressed at that time.

[Gal220]

geo12the, the article you link to in post #2732 is superannuated. Since its publication in June 2020 numerous studies have demonstrated the efficacy of both HCQ and Ivermectin, either alone or in protocols with other agents. Perhaps in June 2020 dexamethasone had some singular relevance, "first drug shown to save lives", but one wonders how many positive articles on HCQ and Ivermectin were suppressed at that time.

 

This trial from December included it as part of their protocol - LINK

 

"Using a protocol of zinc, hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin and one antibiotic (azithromycin, doxycycline, ceftriaxone) in combination with inhaled budesonide and/or intramuscular dexamethasone"

[geo12the]

geo12the, the article you link to in post #2732 is superannuated. Since its publication in June 2020 numerous studies have demonstrated the efficacy of both HCQ and Ivermectin, either alone or in protocols with other agents. Perhaps in June 2020 dexamethasone had some singular relevance, "first drug shown to save lives", but one wonders how many positive articles on HCQ and Ivermectin were suppressed at that time.

 

 

Pretty much every recent study on HCQ has not shown much benefit. Why are people here so married to this compound? Is it because Orange God King likes it? 

 

Here are recent reviews:

 

1) https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/34128772/

 

20% mortality reduction in some observational studies. No benefit in RCT

 

Pathog Glob Health

2021 Jun 15;1-11. doi: 10.1080/20477724.2021.1936818. Online ahead of print.

Hydroxychloroquine and mortality in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and a meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized controlled trials

Augusto Di Castelnuovo 1, Simona Costanzo 2, Antonio Cassone 3, Roberto Cauda 4, Giovanni De Gaetano 2, Licia Iacoviello 2 5

Affiliations expand

PMID: 34128772 DOI: 10.1080/20477724.2021.1936818

 

Abstract

Background: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was proposed as potential treatment for COVID-19, but its association with mortality is unclear. We reviewed published literature for evidence of an association between HCQ (with or without azithromycin (AZM)) and total mortality in COVID-19 patients.Methods: Articles were retrieved until April 29th, 2021 by searching in seven databases. Data were combined using the general-variance-based method.Results: A total of 25 cohort studies (N=41,339 patients) and 11 randomized clinical trials (RCTs; N=8,709) were found. The use of HCQ was not associated with mortality in meta-analysis of RCTs (pooled risk ratio (PRR): 1.08, 95%CI: 0.97-1.20; I2=0%), but it was associated with 20% lower mortality risk (PRR=0.80, 95%CI: 0.69-0.93; I2=80%) in pooling of cohort studies. The negative association with mortality was mainly apparent by pooling cohort studies that used lower doses of HCQ (≤400 mg/day; PRR=0.69, 95%CI: 0.57-0.87). Use of HCQ+AZM (11 studies) was associated with 25% non-statistically significant lower mortality risk (PPR=0.75; 0.51-1.10; P=0.15). Use of HCQ was not associated with severe adverse events (PRR=1.12, 95%CI: 0.88-1.44; I2=0%).Conclusions: HCQ use was not associated with mortality in COVID-19 patients in pooling results from RCTs (high level of certainty of evidence), but it was associated with 20% mortality reduction when findings from observational studies were combined (low level of certainty of evidence). The reduction of mortality was mainly apparent in observational studies where lower doses of HCQ were used. These findings might help disentangling the debate on HCQ use in COVID-19.

 

https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/34106964/

 

No benefit HCQ + azithromycin

 

PLoS One

. 2021 Jun 9;16(6):e0252388. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252388. eCollection 2021.

Lack of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia: A retrospective study

Anis Saib 1, Walid Amara 1, Pascal Wang 2, Simon Cattan 1, Azeddine Dellal 3, Kais Regaieg 4, Stephane Nahon 5, Olivier Nallet 1, Lee S Nguyen 6

Affiliations expand

PMID: 34106964 PMCID: PMC8189518 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252388

Free PMC article

Abstract

Background: Hydroxychloroquine combined with azithromycin (HCQ/AZI) has initially been used against coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). In this retrospective study, we assessed the clinical effects of HCQ/AZI, with a 28-days follow-up.

 

Methods: In a registry-study which included patients hospitalized for COVID-19 between March 15 and April 2, 2020, we compared patients who received HCQ/AZI to those who did not, regarding a composite outcome of mortality and mechanical ventilation with a 28-days follow-up. QT was monitored for patients treated with HCQ/AZI. Were excluded patients in intensive care units, palliative care and ventilated within 24 hours of admission. Three analyses were performed to adjust for selection bias: propensity score matching, multivariable survival, and inverse probability score weighting (IPSW) analyses.

 

Results: Overall, 203 patients were included: 60 patients treated by HCQ/AZI and 143 control patients. During the 28-days follow-up, 32 (16.3%) patients presented the primary outcome and 23 (12.3%) patients died. Propensity-score matching identified 52 unique pairs of patients with similar characteristics. In the matched cohort (n = 104), HCQ/AZI was not associated with the primary composite outcome (log-rank p-value = 0.16). In the overall cohort (n = 203), survival and IPSW analyses also found no benefit from HCQ/AZI. In the HCQ/AZI group, 11 (18.3%) patients prolonged QT interval duration, requiring treatment cessation.

 

Conclusions: HCQ/AZI combination therapy was not associated with lower in-hospital mortality and mechanical ventilation rate, with a 28-days follow-up. In the HCQ/AZI group, 18.3% of patients presented a prolonged QT interval requiring treatment cessation, however, control group was not monitored for this adverse event, making comparison impossible.

 

https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/34099745/

 

no benefit of HCQ

 

Sci Rep

2021 Jun 7;11(1):11974. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-91089-3.

Hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Bahman Amani 1, Ahmad Khanijahani 2, Behnam Amani 3

Affiliations expand

PMID: 34099745 PMCID: PMC8184930 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-91089-3

Free PMC article

Abstract

The efficacy and safety of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in treating coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is disputed. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of HCQ in addition to standard of care (SOC) in COVID-19. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of sciences, and medRxiv were searched up to March 15, 2021. Clinical studies registry databases were also searched for identifying potential clinical trials. The references list of the key studies was reviewed to identify additional relevant resources. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and Jadad checklist. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 5.3). Eleven randomized controlled trials with a total number of 8161 patients were identified as eligible for meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups in terms of negative rate of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (Risk ratio [RR]: 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90, 1.08; P = 0.76), PCR negative conversion time (Mean difference [MD]: - 1.06, 95% CI - 3.10, 0.97; P = 0.30), all-cause mortality (RR: 1.09, 95% CI 1.00, 1.20; P = 0.06), body temperature recovery time (MD: - 0.64, 95% CI - 1.37, 0.10; P = 0.09), length of hospital stay (MD: - 0.17, 95% CI - 0.80, 0.46; P = 0.59), use of mechanical ventilation (RR: 1.12, 95% CI 0.95, 1.32; P = 0.19), and disease progression (RR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.37, 1.85; P = 0.64). However, there was a significant difference between two groups regarding adverse events (RR: 1.81, 95% CI 1.36, 2.42; P < 0.05). The findings suggest that the addition of HCQ to SOC has no benefit in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Additionally, it is associated with more adverse events.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Gal220, Thanks for the link. As I wrote in post #2733: 

 

"...HCQ and Ivermectin, either alone or in protocols with other agents." (my emphasis). 

 

 

 

 

Citing an article from a year ago (as geo12the did in post #2732) with the sensational article title "Coronavirus breakthrough: dexamethasone is first drug shown to save lives" is misleading because this is a year later and a lot has changed since June 2020.

 

[Gal220]

 

Pretty much every recent study on HCQ has not shown much benefit. Why are people here so married to this compound? Is it because Orange God King likes it? 

 

Ivermectin should be preferred IMO, HCQ is only effective early on.  McCullough stresses a multi drug approach(above) like cancer treatment and other diseases, rarely are you able to treat with a single drug.

 

Orange man loves vaccines and personally I will stick to the other therapeutics instead of risking a life changing blood clot.  But I have noticed the fanaticism you mention in relation to treatments or vaccines, and I cant relate...its only our health we are talking about.

[Dorian Grey]

Regarding the HCQ, I believe most all of the RCT's were done on hospitalized patients.  Anyone familiar with the Tamiflu model of proper treatment of fast moving respiratory virus should know, waiting till these patients start turning blue is not going to produce good results, even if the therapeutic being trialed is effective when properly used.  

 

Dr Paul Marik pointed out one of the problems with HCQ, is that red blood cells have a powerful affinity for this med, & suck up most all that is taken over the first couple of days, so you really don't reach therapeutic antiviral and/or immune modulation levels in tissues till you're on it for 3-5 days or so.  Get started on this (HCQ) within 48 hours of symptom onset (Tamiflu model) and you should get immune modulation before the hyper-immune storm occurs, which is typically around day 8.  

 

Very few patients even get their test results back in this 48 hour window, & this is the problem.  I recall Dr Zelenko said he would start his high risk patients on HCQ the day he saw them, before they even had their test, & this was the secret to his success.  Very few of us have access to this type of doctor, so perhaps HCQ is worthless to the masses who must be diagnosed before any prescriptions are written or filled.  

 

I've got some HCQ in my medicine chest, & if I had fallen sick back in the bad old days of Winter, I would have started on this pronto.  Follow the Tamiflu model with HCQ and it will help keep you out of the hospital (if this is your goal).  Avoiding hospitalization has always been my prime directive with this plague.  I worked in hospitals for 35 years, & didn't like a lot of what I saw.  

[Advocatus Diaboli]

geo12the, for your second linked study you present its Conclusions (see post #2735), part of which reads:

 

"In the HCQ/AZI group, 18.3% of patients presented a prolonged QT interval requiring treatment cessation, however, control group was not monitored for this adverse event, making comparison impossible.

 

I find it absolutely astounding that the study got through peer review when the authors openly admit that In the HCQ/AZI group, 18.3% of patients presented with prolonged QT interval and therefore had treatment stopped. And, that the "control group was not monitored for this adverse event".

 

Leads one to wonder: Suppose an equal number of the control results were tossed out because they had some condition that wasn't tested for in the HCQ/AZI group. How would that have affected the overall results? We don't know. So how can any relevant conclusions be drawn from the study? One doesn't start a study and then use different metrics among the study participants--in this case measuring QT interval for some but not others and then stopping HCQ/AZI treatment on the basis of the QT measurements results.

 

A properly executed study would have measured QT intervals of both controls and treated groups before treatment. Those with prolonged QT would be excluded from starting the study in the first place. Development of prolonged QT interval during the study would have necessitated the removal of subjects from both groups in order to maintain study integrity

 

In simple terms, the study was highly flawed and therefore was not a good example to further your case.

 

[Gal220]

NAC being pulled from Amazon, FDA warning letters.  Still being sold elsewhere for now - LINK

 

Mercola thinks its b/c its competing with vaccines, hard to say.  But if I did get covid, it would be one of the things I would take.

[Hebbeh]

https://www.scienced...10621123734.htm

Spermidine

Researchers from the German Center for Infection Research (DZIF) at Charité -- Universitätsmedizin Berlin and the University of Bonn have examined the way in which SARS-CoV-2 reprograms the metabolism of the host cell in order to gain an overall advantage. According to their report in Nature Communications, the researchers were able to identify four substances which inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication in the host cell: spermine and spermidine, substances naturally found in the body; MK-2206, an experimental cancer drug; and niclosamide, a tapeworm drug. Charité is currently conducting a trial to determine whether niclosamide is also effective against COVID-19 in humans.

Rest at link

[albedo]

Good news ! In EU delta variant (B.1.617) is likely to be 90% dominant by August and mRNA vaccines look highly effective. Happy I got my 2 shots!

 

"Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to evolve around the world, generating new variants that are of concern based on their potential for altered transmissibility, pathogenicity, and coverage by vaccines and therapeutics^1–5. Here we report that 20 human sera, drawn 2 or 4 weeks after two doses of BNT162b2, neutralize engineered SARS-CoV-2 with a USA-WA1/2020 genetic background (a virus strain isolated in January 2020) and spike glycoproteins from the newly emerged B.1.617.1, B.1.617.2, B.1.618 (all first identified in India) or B.1.525 (first identified in Nigeria) lineages. Geometric mean plaque reduction neutralization titers against the variant viruses, particularly the B.1.617.1 variant, appear lower than the titer against USA-WA1/2020 virus, but all sera tested neutralize the variant viruses at titers of at least 40. The susceptibility of these newly emerged variants to BNT162b2 vaccine-elicited neutralization supports mass immunization as a central strategy to end the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic across geographies."

 delta.PNG   652.27KB   0 downloads

 

Liu, J., Liu, Y., Xia, H. et al. BNT162b2-elicited neutralization of B.1.617 and other SARS-CoV-2 variants. Nature (2021). https://doi.org/10.1...586-021-03693-y

Edited by albedo, 24 June 2021 - 09:23 AM.

[Mind]

Regarding the HCQ, I believe most all of the RCT's were done on hospitalized patients.  Anyone familiar with the Tamiflu model of proper treatment of fast moving respiratory virus should know, waiting till these patients start turning blue is not going to produce good results, even if the therapeutic being trialed is effective when properly used.  

 

Dr Paul Marik pointed out one of the problems with HCQ, is that red blood cells have a powerful affinity for this med, & suck up most all that is taken over the first couple of days, so you really don't reach therapeutic antiviral and/or immune modulation levels in tissues till you're on it for 3-5 days or so.  Get started on this (HCQ) within 48 hours of symptom onset (Tamiflu model) and you should get immune modulation before the hyper-immune storm occurs, which is typically around day 8.  

 

Very few patients even get their test results back in this 48 hour window, & this is the problem.  I recall Dr Zelenko said he would start his high risk patients on HCQ the day he saw them, before they even had their test, & this was the secret to his success.  Very few of us have access to this type of doctor, so perhaps HCQ is worthless to the masses who must be diagnosed before any prescriptions are written or filled.  

 

I've got some HCQ in my medicine chest, & if I had fallen sick back in the bad old days of Winter, I would have started on this pronto.  Follow the Tamiflu model with HCQ and it will help keep you out of the hospital (if this is your goal).  Avoiding hospitalization has always been my prime directive with this plague.  I worked in hospitals for 35 years, & didn't like a lot of what I saw.  

 

Risch at Yale has been pounding the pavement about this as well. HCQ and Ivermectin are much more effective than the meta-analyses indicate because the meta-analyses continue to include RCTs that were not designed with the protocols doctors found most effective. They keep including the HCQ data from trials that were essentially "designed to fail". https://www.aestheti...rvey-Risch.html

Edited by Mind, 24 June 2021 - 04:29 PM.

[Hip]

Risch at Yale has been pounding the pavement about this as well. HCQ and Ivermectin are much more effective than the meta-analyses indicate because the meta-analyses continue to include RCTs that were not designed with the protocols doctors found most effective. They keep including the HCQ data from trials that were essentially "designed to fail". https://www.aestheti...rvey-Risch.html

 

We believe that Dr. Risch’s summary of the evidence in May 2020 (1) contained factual errors, and that the evidence presented, even at the time of publication, was weak at best. Since then, stronger evidence has demonstrated no benefit for early HCQ + AZ treatment of high-risk patients with mild COVID-19.

 

https://academic.oup.../4/491/5898696 

[pamojja]

Since then, stronger evidence has demonstrated no benefit for early HCQ + AZ treatment of high-risk patients with mild COVID-19.

 

 Conflicts of interest: In the past 5 years, M.P.F. has received speaking fees from Merck; L.D.M. has received consulting fees from Acelity and Sanofi; B.D.J. has received consulting fees from the Alzheimer’s Association; S.H.M. has received speaking fees from Gilead; and E.J.M. has received consulting fees from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts.

 

[Advocatus Diaboli]

.

Re:post #2744.

 

Hip, the article that Mind linked to in post #2743 has a publication date of February 18, 2021. One of the authors was Risch. The link you provide when responding to Mind's post is to an April 2021 article that addresses perceived errors in an August 29, 2020 article by Risch. In other words the article you cite refers to an article by Risch that is about 6 months out of date, relative to his newer publication.

 

The  authors of the article you cite assert:

 

"As members of the Journal’s editorial board, we are strongly supportive of open debate in science, which is essential even on highly contentious issues."

 

Strange that they use the words "even on highly contentious issues". I suspect that "especially" on highly contentious issues would have been a better choice in order to stress the importance of hearing dissention to the apparent status quo.

 

Your cited article continues: "The article contains numerous factual errors and ambiguous statements that need to be corrected or clarified. ". Makes one wonder where these people were during the peer-review process back in August 2020.

 

Although not an "early HCQ + AZ treatment of high-risk patients with mild COVID-19" .Recent results, June 2021, suggest that for ventilated patients HCQ+ Az is quite effective.:

Hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin therapy at a higher dose improved survival by nearly 200% in ventilated COVID patients--June 2021

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 24 June 2021 - 06:41 PM.

[Hip]

Hip, the article that Mind linked to in post #2743 has a publication date of February 18, 2021. One of the authors was Risch. The link you provide when responding to Mind's post is to an April 2021 article that addresses perceived errors in an August 29, 2020 article by Risch. In other words the article you cite refers to an article by Risch that is about 6 months out of date, relative to his newer publication.

 

Thanks for point that out. My screw up.

[Qowpel]

Why is nobody talking about the potential of lysine as a potent anti viral?

[Mind]

I am now so jaded by the awful performance and gaslighting by the health bureaucracies during this pandemic, that I already think this Oxford study is designed to fail.

 

https://www.forbes.c...ermectin-trial/

 

I suppose in some respects it might make sense to enroll already sick and frail people, because those are the one's who are the vast vast vast majority fatalities from COVID. Because healthy and younger cohorts very rarely die from this disease, one would need to enroll many thousands before reaching statistical significance - if mortality was the endpoint.

 

Oxford's large-scale trial will involve giving Ivermectin to elderly people and adults with an underlying health condition. 

 

 

[lancebr]

For the people who are skiddish about getting the new Covid vaccines:

 

"Measles vaccine is 87.5 per cent effective against coronavirus in children and can provide long-term protection against the virus, as per a study."

 

https://www.tandfonl...15.2021.1930471

 

https://www.business...9446-2021-06-23

Edited by lancebr, 25 June 2021 - 07:17 PM.

[Hip]

that I already think this Oxford study is designed to fail.

 

More conspiracy theories?

 

Shadowy men infiltrating a clinical trial and making sure it is designed to fail?

[Dorian Grey]

More conspiracy theories?

 

Shadowy men infiltrating a clinical trial and making sure it is designed to fail?

 

Hip, if you don't think some of the studies have been designed to fail, you haven't been paying attention.  

 

The VA study on HCQ comes to mind.  I recall it was reported a substantial percentage (40%?) of the patients were already on ventilators when they got their first dose of HCQ.  

 

If you're familiar with Tamiflu, what do you think a study on this for influenza might find if they waited till patients were critically ill before they started the Tamiflu therapeutic.  It would be a major failure.  Does this mean Tamiflu is useless for influenza?  

 

The boffins who set up the HCQ trials had to know how antiviral therapeutics and immune modulators work. Evan immune modulators (steroids) will have little effect when given too late.  

 

The trials were sabotaged, & they don't really care some of us are not mystified by reality.  They are just buying time till Big Pharma's billion dollar babies hatch.  

[Hip]

The trials were sabotaged, & they don't really care some of us are not mystified by reality.  They are just buying time till Big Pharma's billion dollar babies hatch.  

 

Do the shadowy men you say deliberately sabotage clinical trials arrive in black helicopters to do their work? There is always the proverbial black helicopter involved in paranoid conspiracy theories. 

[Dorian Grey]

Do the shadowy men you say deliberately sabotage clinical trials arrive in black helicopters to do their work? There is always the proverbial black helicopter involved in paranoid conspiracy theories. 

 

Nope, they travel in limo's inside the DC beltway, where billions upon billions of dollars slosh around.  Play the game & the lottery looks like chump change!  

[bladedmind]

[bladedmind]

Mr. Pointless-Time Wasting seems to assume that everyone is sincere and no one is an opportunist.  I've had plenty of experience in political institutions and have studied them closely as well.  In any large American institution I'd roughly guess that about 5% of the participants are saints, 60% are more or less sincere, 30% are weak to strong opportunists, and 5% are sociopaths.   Society works well enough because enough are honest, more so when stakes are low, but there are also enough that are not whom we must deter and regulate - and too often they get away with their dirty deeds.
 
Even a mostly honest person working as an underpaid regulator could by any number of rationalizations (e.g., “for the children,” “everybody does it”) go easy on the regulated anticipating high compensation from later employment by them.  It's called the revolving-door problem (see wiki, also see iron triangle).    Two/thirds of pharma lobbyists are former federal government employees.   Pharma companies dispensed 90 million dollars in political contributions in 2020.   For what?

The US pays more for health care with fewer results than any of the OECD countries.  If no one were tempted by retention of the rewards they are receiving from the wasteful and unjust current system we could swiftly get better results for half the money (it needn't be a monopoly government plan).  There are other vectors of corruption as well.  Mainstream political science analysis shows that American public policy often follows majority preference, but only when it coincides with preferences of the one percent (e.g., clean air and water); tax and budget issues are decided according to the preferences of the one percent alone.  This doesn't come about by secret backroom meetings, but by coincidences of interest, e.g., a political candidate takes a one-percenter position anticipating that he will be rewarded by the rich. 

Anyone who thinks that public policy decisions are decided purely by science and the common good is being unscientific about politics and is ignoring centuries of history. 

 

[Dorian Grey]

Mr. Pointless-Time Wasting seems to assume that everyone is sincere and no one is an opportunist.  I've had plenty of experience in political institutions and have studied them closely as well.  In any large American institution I'd roughly guess that about 5% of the participants are saints, 60% are more or less sincere, 30% are weak to strong opportunists, and 5% are sociopaths.   Society works well enough because enough are honest, more so when stakes are low, but there are also enough that are not whom we must deter and regulate - and too often they get away with their dirty deeds.
 
Even a mostly honest person working as an underpaid regulator could by any number of rationalizations (e.g., “for the children,” “everybody does it”) go easy on the regulated anticipating high compensation from later employment by them.  It's called the revolving-door problem (see wiki, also see iron triangle).    Two/thirds of pharma lobbyists are former federal government employees.   Pharma companies dispensed 90 million dollars in political contributions in 2020.   For what?

The US pays more for health care with fewer results than any of the OECD countries.  If no one were tempted by retention of the rewards they are receiving from the wasteful and unjust current system we could swiftly get better results for half the money (it needn't be a monopoly government plan).  There are other vectors of corruption as well.  Mainstream political science analysis shows that American public policy often follows majority preference, but only when it coincides with preferences of the one percent (e.g., clean air and water); tax and budget issues are decided according to the preferences of the one percent alone.  This doesn't come about by secret backroom meetings, but by coincidences of interest, e.g., a political candidate takes a one-percenter position anticipating that he will be rewarded by the rich. 

Anyone who thinks that public policy decisions are decided purely by science and the common good is being unscientific about politics and is ignoring centuries of history. 

 

 

Bret & Heather concur! 

 

Edited by Dorian Grey, 27 June 2021 - 04:48 AM.

[Hip]

A while ago an academic came up with a system that would predict the political and geopolitical future with what he claimed was 90% accuracy. His system was simple: you identify and weigh up all the stakeholders in a situation, and you then find that the future outcome is, in 90% of cases, the one which aligns with the dominant stakeholders.  

 

Most corporates know how to do stakeholder analysis. If you want to achieve some objective as a corporate, but the thing that you are planning to do disadvantages 90% of stakeholders in the situation, well then forget about it, your objective not going to happen. I think most people would understand that. In stakeholder analysis, it's nearly always the bulk weight of the stakeholders who stand to benefit who will force their desires and objectives on the world.

 

 

Now let's look at ivermectin from a stakeholder analysis perspective. Let's assume for the sake of argument that ivermectin has profound effects in stopping COVID, as some claim. But does this benefit the relevant stakeholders? Well first we have to identify the stakeholders. The ivermectin study is being conducted in the UK, and so the largest stakeholder is the UK government and the NHS.  

 

With an effective drug for COVID, the UK could end all lockdowns and return to business as usual. The money to be saved in doing this is in the £trillions, because the pandemic is costing all countries trillions. The NHS will also be greatly advantaged by an effective drug, as this would take the enormous pressure off the NHS. The people of the UK would also be greatly advantaged, because nobody likes lockdown. So these are the stakeholders who stand to benefit if ivermectin were indeed an effective treatment.

 

Are there any stakeholders who would be disadvantaged if ivermectin were an effective treatment? Hard to find any, but maybe there are some pharma companies planning their own drug to treat COVID who might be disadvantaged. But in terms of stakeholder weight, a pharma company is a lot smaller that a national government. Thus stakeholder analysis would show that the pharma company would lose, and the UK government, NHS and people of the UK would win. Thus should ivermectin be a viable treatment for COVID, stakeholder analysis shows that this treatment would be rushed out to help get the UK economy back up and running. 

 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 27 June 2021 - 05:25 AM.

[Hip]

Another thing that non-scientists do not understand is the fact that scientists have got a predilection for truth. After all, that is what science is about, the search for knowledge and truth. 

 

Thus when anyone tries to distort or manipulate the truth for their own nefarious purposes, as businessmen and some politicians are apt to do, they are always going to have trouble getting scientists on their side, as there are not many high level scientists who are prepared to sacrifice the truth. 

 

Pharma companies for an example sometimes get a bad press, but that bad press may arise more from the attitudes of the businessmen the board room, rather than from the everyday scientists working in the lab of the pharma company, who are trying to find cures to the many horrible diseases which afflict humanity. 

Edited by Hip, 27 June 2021 - 05:23 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

Give me a billion dollars & I'll show you how easy it is to corrupt science.  There are actually many billions in play with this pandemic.  

 

If it was ever acknowledged IVM (or HCQ) was an effective treatment, the EUA for the vaccines would be invalidated until 2 year safety studies were complete.  Do you really believe this might not effect the science regarding outpatient therapeutics?  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 27 June 2021 - 07:07 AM.