2092 replies to this topic

[Hip]

We already identified this sentence as pure speculation, as evidenced by the words “might” and “could”.

 

Of course is it speculation, that is stating the obvious. You would need further studies or a deeper investigation to prove or disprove that speculation. 

 

This is why you are wrong to jump to any conclusion that the vaccines are responsible, because only further studies can clarify the situation. 

 

Your Occam's razor idea is completely laughable! The idea that by Occam's razor, the most simple explanation must be correct (which in your biased mind is the vaccines). That is a silly argument.

[DanCG]

 

Your Occam's razor idea is completely laughable! The idea that by Occam's razor, the most simple explanation must be correct (which in your biased mind is the vaccines). That is a silly argument.

 

Here I must humbly correct the self-proclaimed expert on the philosophy of science.

 

Occam’s razor does not mean, as you say, that the simplest hypothesis is necessarily correct. It only means that the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be favored until such time as one is forced to abandon it.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives. Since failing explanations can always be burdened with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they tend to be more testable. As a logical principle, Occam's razor would demand that scientists accept the simplest possible theoretical explanation for existing data. However, science has shown repeatedly that future data often support more complex theories than do existing data. Science prefers the simplest explanation that is consistent with the data available at a given time, but the simplest explanation may be ruled out as new data become available

 

So, regarding the results under discussion here, if new information were to come to light, such as an analysis that shows the vaccinated population is truly different in some respect that could reasonably account for the results, then the simple explanation that the vaccine was harmful would be abandoned. Until then, the simple explanation has to be considered most likely to be correct.

 

By the way, the Wikipedia editors must have been reading your mind: “For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives.”

 

Edited by DanCG, 04 January 2024 - 11:24 PM.

[Hip]

Occam’s razor does not mean, as you say, that the simplest hypothesis is necessarily correct. It only means that the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be favored until such time as one is forced to abandon it.

 

However you want to describe it, I don't know of any evidence which has shown that Occam’s razor is the right way to do science. 

 

Given that medical science is usually very complex, and given that it is usually only pseudoscience merchants who try to offer very simplistic explanations for how diseases arise, Occam’s razor would appear to be an approach which selects for quackery.  

 

 

 

[Empiricus]

However you want to describe it, I don't know of any evidence which has shown that Occam’s razor is the right way to do science. 

 

Given that medical science is usually very complex, and given that it is usually only pseudoscience merchants who try to offer very simplistic explanations for how diseases arise, Occam’s razor would appear to be an approach which selects for quackery.  

 

What corporate medicine seeks is a patentable drug to address a particular set of symptoms.  Also a test that correlates with a set of symptoms.  The economics dictates simplification.   It has nothing I think to do with Occam's razor.  But I could see how Occam's razor might be misapplied or misinterpreted to justify today's medical orthodoxy, which is profit-driven. 

[Hip]

What corporate medicine seeks is a patentable drug to address a particular set of symptoms.  Also a test that correlates with a set of symptoms.  The economics dictates simplification.   It has nothing I think to do with Occam's razor.  But I could see how Occam's razor might be misapplied or misinterpreted to justify today's medical orthodoxy, which is profit-driven. 

 

Many people's brains are filled with dull cliches that they read online, and then accept like sheep without further thinking.

 

The notion that the pharmaceutical industry is purely profit driven, and would do much better at treating disease if it operated by some other ideals, is a standard cliche. People repeat this cliche, without ever considering whether it might be true or not.

 

When I hear people repeat this cliche, I know they are not actually thinking, just repeating what they read. 

 

People criticise the capitalist approach, yet fail to realise that in communist countries, we do not see the sort of medical advances we get in the capitalist world. Unless you can think of a better approach, best not to suggest replacing the current approach. Thanks to capitalism, in the last say 200 years, medicine has transformed itself from its primitive Dark Age approach of leeches and bloodletting and the false idea that disease was caused by an imbalance in the four humours, to an incredibly advanced state of scientific understanding by comparison.

 

 

 

If you have a scientific understanding of the body, and of disease processes, you will realise that there are actual very few means of interacting and intervening with these internal processes. Surgery is one means, but that can only address macroscopic issues; surgery cannot operate at the microscopic molecular level where much of disease is located. 

 

Whereas developing custom designed chemicals to insert into the body — pharmaceutical drugs as we call them — is a incredibly powerful means of intervening in the body at a molecular level. It's almost miraculous that a designer chemical that you take by mouth can specifically target and adjust body functioning at the molecular level, and at the precise locations you wish to manipulate. This is why the pharma industry dominates medical treatment, because such chemical manipulation of body processes is at present one of the only ways we have of adjust things in the body. 

 

It would be great if the human body was like software, where you can make adjustments anywhere you like. But much of what happens in the body is beyond our control at present. We are lucky that we do have the chemical drug method of adjusting the body, because without that, medicine would be in the Dark Ages still.

 

 

 

The only slight criticism of the capitalist approach to medicine would be that in the US, people may be a tad over-medicalised. In other words, they may be a little too coerced into taking pharmaceutical drugs or having surgeries, compared to say Europe, where the populace is a little less medicalised. This over-medicalisation might be due to the more capitalist environment of the US compared to Europe, because more medicalisation equals more profits. Whereas in Europe with its socialised medicine, more medicalisation costs the government more money.

 

Having said that, I've seen from reading ME/CFS forums that ME/CFS patients in the US get a more attentive service from their doctors, and US doctors are more likely to be willing try out speculative treatments that patients request, compared to European doctors. So my view is that US patients tend to get a better service from the medical profession than European patients. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 06 January 2024 - 05:50 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

It's been said: Capitalism is the worst economic system...  Except for everything else that's been tried.  

 

This said, Capitalism without rules or any regulation is going to hurt a lot of people.  

 

Evidence based medicine and randomized controlled trials used to be a cross the pharmaceutical industry had to bear, to keep anyone from selling snake oil cures. Unfortunately, Big Pharma has learned to tame this beast and turn it on anyone who dares to argue with them.  Their political lobbying rivals about every industry that exists, they sponsor all the news, and support all the medical schools.  

 

Remember when hydroxychloroquine was taking off, & they slammed on the breaks saying it had to be tested for safety and effectiveness?  Multi-million dollar trials were indeed set up, but carefully engineered to avoid the only population it was likely to help, and HCQ was withheld until patients were critically ill in the hospital.  I've been debating whether truly early (Tamiflu/Paxlovid class) trials actually ever got done with some doctors on another forum I frequent, and they can't find a single world class early/outpatient HCQ trial that got patients on their med within 2-5 days.  You can't make this stuff up, & even I found this hard to believe.  

 

A million died in the US before Big Pharma's billion dollar babies hatched, and honestly, they really aren't all that impressive.  I can understand this kind of deception and shenanigans for new therapeutics for long standing disease, but in the heat of a pandemic, when seniors are dying like a couple of Titanics going down every week, I take exception.  

 

This is our new normal, and you will do as Big Pharma says with any health issue you develop in your life.  Glad I've only got a decade or so left.  

 

[geo12the]

 

 

Evidence based medicine and randomized controlled trials used to be a cross the pharmaceutical industry had to bear, to keep anyone from selling snake oil cures. Unfortunately, Big Pharma has learned to tame this beast and turn it on anyone who dares to argue with them.  Their political lobbying rivals about every industry that exists, they sponsor all the news, and support all the medical schools.  

 

Remember when hydroxychloroquine was taking off, & they slammed on the breaks saying it had to be tested for safety and effectiveness? 

 

No doubt there are issues with big pharma. But that doesn't mean that the favorite treatments of the anti-vax crowd work.  Case and point hydroxychloroquine:

 

https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/38171239/

 

Sadly in today's world everything has turned into this dopamine hit driven zero-sum contest between competing narratives where both of the narratives suck. Happy 2024!

[Dorian Grey]

No doubt there are issues with big pharma. But that doesn't mean that the favorite treatments of the anti-vax crowd work.  Case and point hydroxychloroquine:

 

https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/38171239/

 

Sadly in today's world everything has turned into this dopamine hit driven zero-sum contest between competing narratives where both of the narratives suck. Happy 2024!

 Oh geo.  the patients in your linked study were way past the point of benefit from HCQ. "Methods and findings: We estimated the worldwide in-hospital mortality attributable to HCQ "

 

Like Tamiflu, you've got to TREAT EARLY if you wish to see benefit.  

 

https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/33042552/

 

Hydroxychloroquine is effective, and consistently so when provided early, for COVID-19: a systematic review

 

"HCQ was found to be consistently effective against COVID-19 when provided early in the outpatient setting."

Edited by Dorian Grey, 06 January 2024 - 06:41 PM.

[Hip]

Multi-million dollar trials were indeed set up, but carefully engineered to avoid the only population it was likely to help

 

Ironically, this paranoia you have about the pharmaceutical industry manipulating each and every clinical trial in order to suppress "the effective cure they don't want you to have" may actually be treatable by pharmaceutical products! 

 

Incidentally, the concept of "the effective cure they don't want you to have" is another Internet cliche that people read and then believe without any further thought. Amongst the paranoid denizens of the Internet, there are many who really believe that the cures for cancer, heart disease, neurological diseases, etc are already known, but the pharmaceutical industry's henchmen engineer it so that these supposed cures never see the light of day. It's extraordinary that people uncritically lap this stuff up, and are happy to believe it. 

Edited by Hip, 06 January 2024 - 09:13 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

Ironically, this paranoia you have about the pharmaceutical industry manipulating each and every clinical trial in order to suppress "the effective cure they don't want you to have" may actually be treatable by pharmaceutical products! 

 

Incidentally, the concept of "the effective cure they don't want you to have" is another Internet cliche that people read and then believe without any further thought. Amongst the paranoid denizens of the Internet, there are many who really believe that the cures for cancer, heart disease, neurological diseases, etc are already known, but the pharmaceutical industry's henchmen engineer it so that these supposed cures never see the light of day. It's extraordinary that people uncritically lap this stuff up, and are happy to believe it. 

 

You know Recovery & Solidarity HCQ trials were limited to hospitalized patients, do you not?  

 

Please tell me you don't believe it is best to let fast moving respiratory virus blossom into clotted off lungs and cytokine storm before you initiate a potential trial agent.  

 

I've got a high school diploma and a year training as a surgical tech (+35 years in the front lines / operating rooms), yet I have no trouble comprehending why Tamiflu must be given within 48 hours from onset of symptoms.  

 

Please tell me you understand why too.  

 

Do you know of any world class early treatment HCQ trials, where patients got their med within 2-5 days max after symptom onset, risk stratified with endpoint of hospitalization and death?  Would it not be wise to evaluate a potential therapeutic flagged after extensive research after original SARS coronavirus?  

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC1232869/

 

Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread (Published online 2005 Aug 22)

[Advocatus Diaboli]

 

Re: the study mentioned in post #1657.

 

Even Heracles (Hercules) wouldn't stand a ghost of a chance of cleaning out that Augean Stable of steaming bullshit.

 

The study-inclusion-criteria seem to be of the "or" variety rather than of the more robust "and" variety (which tends to better avoid study heterogeneity).

 

The study claims to be a meta-analysis of 44 studies which, as the title wants to suggest to the reader, would deal with "hydroxychloroquine during the first COVID-19 wave". 

 

Here are 2 examples of why the study is, indeed, a massive heap of BS (steaming variety):

 

The first (in order of reference) of the 44 studies included in the meta-analysis is citation [16], under section "3.1. Study characteristics. Its title is:

 

"COVID-19 in hematopoietic cell transplant recipients"

 

Clicking the [16] link one gets a side-popout which displays information about the reference. Also in that popout is a hyperlink-option to "View PDF". Clicking that link gets to a page where the study can be read. A search on the word "hydroxychloroquine" in the text yields no results. (It's mentioned in tables 1, and 3).

 

No mention of HCQ in the conclusion.

 

HUH? A study used in a meta-analysis which claims to examine "deaths induced by the compassionate use of hydroxycloroquine" doesn't even mention the word "hydroxychloroquine" as part of the text. Pathetic, to say the least.

 

The second reference, [17] in the study, is:

 

"The outcome of COVID-19 in patients with hematological malignancy"

 

The full text is behind a paywall if one tries to access it by way of the side-popout links (abstract, however, is available). But, the full study can be accessed by using "other methods".

 

Using the "other methods" there are descrepencies that can be seen between information given in the abstract and information in the full study that I accessed. 

 

Doing a search for "hydroxychloroquine" in the full study yields 2 results. A mention in TABLE 1 (Demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients) , and again in TABLE 4 (Clinical and demographic features of the deceased patients).

 

TABLE 1 tells us that 508/740 patients with "hematological malignancy" had taken HCQ (among other drugs) and that 541/740 patients without cancer had taken HCQ (among other drugs). The table also lists sex, age, and comorbidities.

 

TABLE 4 tells us that 77/102 (76.2%) patients that had blood cancer and COVID-19, and who also had taken HCQ died. Whereas 41/50 (82%) patients without blood cancer and who had taken HCQ, died. Note that the given percentage of 76.2%, above, is incorrect. 77/102 is 75.5% (rounded). Such a simple error should have been caught by the authors before being sent to review. And, the reviewers clearly didn't do their job.

 

The conclusion of the study is: 

 

"This study reveals that there is an increased risk of COVID‐19‐related serious events (ICU admission, MV support, or death) in patients with hematological malignancy compared with COVID‐19 patients without cancer and confirms the high vulnerability of patients with hematological malignancy in the current pandemic."

 

Not one mention of HCQ in the conclusion.

 

So the meta-analysis authors want readers to believe that partly on the basis of [17] (1/44 studies) it was HCQ that killed the cancer patients who had COVID-19 as well as these comorbidities: hypertension 51.2%, diabetes mellitus 26.8%, cardiovascular diseases 21.1%, and respiratory system diseases 23.6%.

 

Yeah, right.

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 07 January 2024 - 02:58 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

Thanks for this Advocatus Diaboli.  It's truly amazing how fanatical the resistance to HCQ has been.  

 

With the Iowa Caucus less than 2 weeks away, I imagine this is Trump Derangement Syndrome flaring once again.  

 

I wonder if there will be a kerfuffle from the scientific community, like there was with the Surgisphere fraud.  

 

We live in interesting times!  

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Yeah, hard to explain the resistance. But, if you add a little "confirmation bias" to a nice selection of "my truths" (while ignoring demonstrated facts), then any stance would seem to be possible. Must be too hard a pill to swallow to admit that HCQ might have been able to save thousands of lives, and that those lives saved might be, in part, attributable to Trump's endorsement.

 

The left really needs to concentrate more on the most pressing existential problems facing humanity today, to wit: transphobia, Islamophobia, racism, the Jews, climate change, and Trump. Discussions of the efficacy of HCQ should be placed on the back burner.

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 07 January 2024 - 05:23 AM.

[geo12the]

Yeah, hard to explain the resistance. But, if you add a little "confirmation bias" to a nice selection of "my truths" (while ignoring demonstrated facts), then any stance would seem to be possible. Must be too hard a pill to swallow to admit that HCQ might have been able to save thousands of lives, and that those lives saved might be, in part, attributable to Trump's endorsement.

 

The left really needs to concentrate more on the most pressing existential problems facing humanity today, to wit: transphobia, Islamophobia, racism, the Jews, climate change, and Trump. Discussions of the efficacy of HCQ should be placed on the back burner.

 

The bottom line question is does HCQ work effectively and well enough that it will be shown in multiple scientific papers? Answer is no. Regardless of how politically married you are to this stuff and the anti medical establishment narratives, you can't pick and chose only the science that supports your hypothesis and say everything else is bogus.  

[joesixpack]

The bottom line question is does HCQ work effectively and well enough that it will be shown in multiple scientific papers? Answer is no. Regardless of how politically married you are to this stuff and the anti medical establishment narratives, you can't pick and chose only the science that supports your hypothesis and say everything else is bogus.  

Yes it does, and if they ever do a study that administers it correctly (within 5 days of first symptoms and with zinc), it will be shown to be effective. The same thing goes with Ivermectin.

[Dorian Grey]

The bottom line question is does HCQ work effectively and well enough that it will be shown in multiple scientific papers? Answer is no. Regardless of how politically married you are to this stuff and the anti medical establishment narratives, you can't pick and chose only the science that supports your hypothesis and say everything else is bogus.  

 

How large a study would you like?  Here's one hot off the presses (2023)

 

https://www.scienced...052297523001075

 

Outcomes after early treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: An analysis of a database of 30,423 COVID-19 patients

 

Results

Among 30,202 patients for whom information on treatment was available, 191/23,172 (0.82%) patients treated with HCQ-AZ died, compared to 344/7030 (4.89%) who did not receive treatment with HCQ-AZ. HCQ-AZ therapy was associated with a lower mortality than treatment without HCQ-AZ (odds ratio (OR) 0.16; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.14–0.19). After adjustment for sex, age, period, and patient management, HCQ-AZ was associated with a significantly lower mortality rate (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.55, 95% CI 0.45–0.68). On a subsample of 21,664 patients with available variant information, results remained robust after adjustment on sex, age, patient management and variant (aOR 0.55; 95% CI 0.44–0.69). On a subsample of 16,063 patients, HCQ-AZ was still associated with a significantly lower mortality rate (aOR 0.47, 95%CI 0.29–0.75) after adjustment for sex, age, period, patient management, vaccination status and comorbidities.

Conclusion

Analysis of this large online database showed that HCQ-AZ was consistently associated with the lowest mortality.

[Hip]

Yes it does, and if they ever do a study that administers it correctly (within 5 days of first symptoms and with zinc), it will be shown to be effective. 

 

There are probably dozens of treatments that could have saved many lives during the pandemic, if these treatments had been plucked out of the research environment, and deployed widely across the nations. 

 

My personal idea for saving lives during the pandemic was taking echinacea.

 

Did you know that if you take the immune-stimulating herb echinacea at the very first signs of a cold appearing, there is a good chance you will never get that cold, because echinacea is able to destroy the cold virus on your mucous membranes before it gets a grip on you. There are many studies demonstrating echinacea can prevent colds. 

 

If you take echinacea once the cold has already manifested, then it will not work, in my experience. But catch a cold early enough — like at the first few sneezes and when you are just starting to feel groggy — then you can often prevent it entirely. This is what I have found; I have used echinacea to help prevent colds for many decades, and it is particularly useful as a prophylactic to take at the end of the day, if you have been exposed to people with a cold at work; or as a prophylactic if you feel a cold coming on.

 

 

Given that SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus, and coronavirus is a cold virus, I suspect taking echinacea at the first signs of a COVID infection would wipe that infection out entirely. 

 

I was using echinacea during the pandemic whenever there was risk of COVID exposure. 

 

If people across the nations had been instructed to take echinacea at the first sign of COVID, it might have substantially reduced viral transmission and reduced COVID deaths. Not to mention reduced the incidence of the dreaded long COVID.

 

Echinacea is cheap and widely available in supplement stores. And you would not need to take it all the time, just when you feel the first signs of a cold coming on, or after a high risk of exposure to COVID, such as going out to a party or large social event. 

 

 

So I suspect echinacea could have saved lots of lives. But the trick is convincing the medical community that such an approach would work. For that you need evidence. 

 

Echinacea was my personal idea for how to better control the pandemic, and I discussed this approach on other forums back in March 2020 (see this post), before the pandemic took off in the West. (That post also gives evidence for how allicin might reduce the chances of catching COVID). But people all around the world were coming up with lots of different ideas to try to control the pandemic, and each person thinks their approach will be effective.  

 

 

 

Evidence for echinacea efficacy: this meta-analysis of 14 studies on echinacea for preventing or treating colds found that echinacea reduced the chance of catching a cold by 58%.

 

 

EDIT: just found this study which demonstrates that echinacea does indeed work against coronaviruses.

Edited by Hip, 07 January 2024 - 10:30 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

I believe it was Dr Kory who said "almost anything worked" (showed some benefit) IF you used it early enough.  HCQ, IVM, steroids, clotting inhibitors, immune modulators, Vitamin-D, zinc. 

 

Problem was...  The powers that be insisted COVID outpatients use ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!  Remdesivir & a vent were the only therapeutics throughout the darkest days (pre-omicron) of the pandemic.  Sure made it easy for the vaccine and Paxlovid EUAs.  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 07 January 2024 - 10:42 PM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Here is a link to the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines for ivermectin, updated December 20, 2023. In which a "Panel" examines evidence that is used to make a recommendation concerning the use of the drug for COVID-19 treatment.

 

The review Panel's recommendation:

 

"The Panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19"

 

Under "Rationale" for their decision, one section cites the "TOGETHER" trial in following statement:

 

"Trials have failed to find a clinical benefit of using ivermectin to treat COVID-19 in outpatients. In TOGETHER, an adaptive platform trial conducted in Brazil, there was no apparent difference between the ivermectin and placebo arms for the primary outcome of risk of emergency department visits or hospitalization (14.7% vs. 16.4%).14 In addition, there was no statistically significant difference between the ivermectin and placebo arms in mortality (3.1% vs. 3.5%). In COVID-OUT, a randomized factorial trial, the use of ivermectin did not reduce the occurrence of a composite outcome of emergency department visits, hospitalization, or death when compared with a matched control (5.7% vs. 4.1%).6 "

 

Other rationales are given, but my focus here is on the TOGETHER trial, because information about its flaws has been available from at least the summer of 2022. Namely, an analysis by Charles L. Hooper and David R. Henderson of the CATO Institute (CI). Among the points offered in CI analysis are the following:

 

"...results of the TOGETHER Trial suggest that ivermectin actually did benefit the Brazilians in the treatment group — results that are in agreement with 87% of the other clinical trials that have tested ivermectin — there is still good reason to continue studying the drug as a possible preventative or treatment for COVID-19."

 

"Study issues / Many of the outcomes specified in the TOGETHER trial protocol for ivermectin are missing from the final report. The reason for this, in part, is that several mid‐​trial protocol changes were made. Trial protocols are typically set before a trial begins and are not subsequently changed. Yet, in the case of the TOGETHER ivermectin study, all‐​cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory mortality outcomes were removed, and inclusion/​exclusion criteria were changed from including to excluding vaccinated patients."

 

"The control groups for the two halves of the study (ivermectin versus placebo and fluvoxamine versus placebo) that were conducted almost simultaneously should have had similar characteristics, but they didn’t. That is hard to understand."

 

"The placebo used in the trial was not specified in the NEJM article (referring to the TOGETHER trial). An earlier trial announcement said it would be a vitamin C pill. Vitamin C has been studied in 42 clinical trials as a treatment for COVID-19, with some indications of efficacy. Obviously, a potentially efficacious substance is not a good placebo."

 

"Also, this clinical trial was powered at 80%. That means there was a 20% chance of a false negative result even if the trial had been conducted flawlessly."

 

"Background issues / Ivermectin treatment of parasitic infection is common in Brazil, and researchers needed to take care that trial participants had not recently used the drug. Yet, recent ivermectin use was not a formal exclusionary criterion for the study. The authors say that such patients were excluded via “extensive screening,” but if prior ivermectin use was not part of the official exclusion criteria for the trial (and it wasn’t), then we don’t know how widespread this screening was and what form it took."

 

"The subgroup analysis is missing some patient data. For instance, the time since onset of symptoms is missing for 23% of patients. Similar data on patient age are missing. That information is important for good analysis."

 

"Treatment dose / In the TOGETHER trial, ivermectin was administered to patients on an empty stomach, reducing the absorption rate of the drug. That makes the effective dose about 15% to 40% of what current clinical practice suggests. "

 

 

I could go on cutting and pasting, but by now the point should be clear--the NIH "Panel" has recommended against ivermectin partly on the basis of the flawed TOGETHER trial. This information was out there. It appears to have been disregarded by the NIH Panel. Why?

 

 

On another topic, geo12the wrote in post #1664: "The bottom line question is does HCQ work effectively and well enough that it will be shown in multiple scientific papers? Answer is no"

 

Yes, it does. No, it doesn't (this is where geo12the links to a study to substantiate the claim). Take your pick. The fascinating question is why is there an apparent political ideological divide reflected in which answer one choses to side with.

 

 

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 08 January 2024 - 12:18 AM.

[Hip]

 The fascinating question is why is there an apparent political ideological divide reflected in which answer one choses to side with.

 

The answer to that question is that 99% of the population do not have sufficient scientific nous to address the issues scientifically, so they try to convert the subject matter into a political debate, as politics is simple enough for everyone to understand. 

 

Whenever you see people transforming a scientific debate into a political one, it's often because they are uncomfortable with their lack of scientific understanding.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

The recent study "Deaths induced by compassionate use of hydroxychloroquine during the first COVID-19 wave: an estimate" is a meta-analysis of 44 studies, and, because it's a veritable cornucopia of confirmation bias, is being ballyhooed and echo-chambered by those who deny the efficacy of HCQ.

 

In post #1661 I gave 2 examples of why that study is trash. Here, I present a thrid example.

 

Reference [50] (one of the 44 studies) in the "Deaths induced..." study is: "Patient Characteristics and Outcomes of 11 721 Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Hospitalized Across the United States".

 

It contains the following statements:

 

Section "Putative COVID-19 Therapies":

 

"Patients treated with hydroxychloroquine were less likely to have the following comorbidities: diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, obesity, chronic kidney disease (including stage 5), and liver disease. Patients treated with hydroxychloroquine were more likely to be on mechanical ventilation than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine (24.9% vs 12.2%, respectively). The unadjusted mortality rate for patients treated with hydroxychloroquine was 24.8%, compared to 19.6% among those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine (Supplementary Table 3)."

 

Later on, in the "Discussion" section:

 

"In the current cohort, unadjusted mortality rates were higher among patients receiving hydroxychloroquine. These results must be interpreted with caution, as outcomes were confounded by higher rates of comorbid conditions and disease severity among those treated with hydroxychloroquine. However, a recent randomized study of hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine failed to demonstrate a therapeutic benefit with this agent [28]."

 

I've bolded certain parts of the quoted material. If the authors of [50] can't get their story straight about comorbidities (which is it--"less likely" or "higher rates") how can that study's inclusion in the meta-analysis be trusted to accurately contribute to the conclusions of the meta-analysis?

 

"Patients treated with hydroxychloroquine were more likely to be on mechanical ventilation than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine (24.9% vs 12.2%, respectively)." Here, the authors of [50] seem to be offering up a poster child for the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy. I believe it's been pretty well established that it is the most critically ill patients that are put on ventilation. With no proof, the authors intimate that it had to have been the HCQ that led to ventilation.

 

In light of the above, it isn't surprising that: "The unadjusted mortality rate for patients treated with hydroxychloroquine was 24.8%, compared to 19.6% among those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine (Supplementary Table 3).".  So, if the authors' claim of "higher rates of comorbid conditions and disease severity" among those who had taken HCQ is correct, then it's a no-brainer to expect a greater number of deaths, regardless of HCQ prescription status. I hope the authors' weren't trying to imply that HCQ causes comorbidities and disease severity, thus increasing the probability of death. Patients died because of disease severity and comorbidities, not HCQ.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 08 January 2024 - 09:03 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

Thanks for doing our homework for us Advocatus. 

 

When I see these stories about HCQ killing everyone who takes it, I know they are rubbish, but it's hard to be motivated to dig through all the manure and try to determine what the heck were they thinking.  

 

Welcome to election season!  Orange man trying to kill everyone!  Run for your lives!  

[Daniel Cooper]

The answer to that question is that 99% of the population do not have sufficient scientific nous to address the issues scientifically, so they try to convert the subject matter into a political debate, as politics is simple enough for everyone to understand. 

 

Whenever you see people transforming a scientific debate into a political one, it's often because they are uncomfortable with their lack of scientific understanding.

 

Maybe.

 

But I think if you'll look back, you'll see that the covid-19 pandemic was politicized even by many researchers and scientific advisers.

 

Remember that study that had to be withdrawn from the Lancet early on? The one with the made up data? The only explanation I have for that is that they were trying to influence public policy. Kristian Andersen's public vs. his private pronouncements on covid. Of course, almost everything that came out of Fauci's mouth. You even had scientists at some of the US's public health institutions in emails stating that they were reluctant to make certain statements that were factually correct - for fear that those statements might aid the right in general or Donald Trump in particular.

 

No - covid-19 was politicized from the get go and opinion divided very early on along strictly partisan political lines. And not amongst just the laity but also the scientific community as well. And presumably they had the scientific nous to know better.

[Hip]

No - covid-19 was politicized from the get go and opinion divided very early on along strictly partisan political lines. And not amongst just the laity but also the scientific community as well. And presumably they had the scientific nous to know better.

 

I wonder if the scientific community was just dragged into the political fracas because of the attacks on them. 

 

If there is a war going on, it can be difficult to avoid becoming embroiled. 

 

I remember in the early days of the pandemic, there was general awe at the fact that scientists were pulling out all the stops, working 24 hour a day, trying to get a vaccine out in 18 months. I don't remember any criticism of the vaccines then; people saw the vaccines as coming to save them. Which of course they did. 

 

But later you got the highly organised anti-vaccine institutions getting involved, and things became politicised from then on. 

 

Once it became politicised, it was no longer a case of scientifically weighting up the pros and cons of getting a COVID vaccine, it became a war between the medical authorities and the antivax organisation and their supporters, and people chose sides on which to fight on. 

 

Once you start a war like that, it's hard even for scientists to remain calm and objective in their comments, because you are fighting an ongoing battle, even if you did not want to. 

 

Edited by Hip, 08 January 2024 - 06:32 PM.

[Mind]

This is just a pre-print, but once again the COVID injections have been found to significantly increase cardiac problems and exacerbate diabetic issues.

 

Meanwhile, AARP is encouraging their members to get their 8th COVID injection (in three years). Nothing says failure more than needing a "vaccine" over and over and over and over again. The COVID injections temporarily increase the number of antibodies to some specific strain of SARS-CoV2. No sterilizing immunity. Nothing even close to the system-wide immune response from natural infection and/or historical vaccines.

 

One good thing about the irresponsible push for the COVID injections all the time for everyone, is that people are looking over the history of vaccines, noting the failures, and questioning their efficacy.

[joesixpack]

There are probably dozens of treatments that could have saved many lives during the pandemic, if these treatments had been plucked out of the research environment, and deployed widely across the nations. 

 

My personal idea for saving lives during the pandemic was taking echinacea.

 

Did you know that if you take the immune-stimulating herb echinacea at the very first signs of a cold appearing, there is a good chance you will never get that cold, because echinacea is able to destroy the cold virus on your mucous membranes before it gets a grip on you. There are many studies demonstrating echinacea can prevent colds. 

 

If you take echinacea once the cold has already manifested, then it will not work, in my experience. But catch a cold early enough — like at the first few sneezes and when you are just starting to feel groggy — then you can often prevent it entirely. This is what I have found; I have used echinacea to help prevent colds for many decades, and it is particularly useful as a prophylactic to take at the end of the day, if you have been exposed to people with a cold at work; or as a prophylactic if you feel a cold coming on.

 

 

Given that SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus, and coronavirus is a cold virus, I suspect taking echinacea at the first signs of a COVID infection would wipe that infection out entirely. 

 

I was using echinacea during the pandemic whenever there was risk of COVID exposure. 

 

If people across the nations had been instructed to take echinacea at the first sign of COVID, it might have substantially reduced viral transmission and reduced COVID deaths. Not to mention reduced the incidence of the dreaded long COVID.

 

Echinacea is cheap and widely available in supplement stores. And you would not need to take it all the time, just when you feel the first signs of a cold coming on, or after a high risk of exposure to COVID, such as going out to a party or large social event. 

 

 

So I suspect echinacea could have saved lots of lives. But the trick is convincing the medical community that such an approach would work. For that you need evidence. 

 

Echinacea was my personal idea for how to better control the pandemic, and I discussed this approach on other forums back in March 2020 (see this post), before the pandemic took off in the West. (That post also gives evidence for how allicin might reduce the chances of catching COVID). But people all around the world were coming up with lots of different ideas to try to control the pandemic, and each person thinks their approach will be effective.  

 

 

 

Evidence for echinacea efficacy: this meta-analysis of 14 studies on echinacea for preventing or treating colds found that echinacea reduced the chance of catching a cold by 58%.

 

 

EDIT: just found this study which demonstrates that echinacea does indeed work against coronaviruses.

 

Thanks for these articles.

 

I believe that I have had Covid 19 3 times, although I only tested positive for it one time. The first time I think it was Delta, summer 2021. I felt sick for 3 or 4 days, food and liquid tasted funny, I went for a PCR test which was negative, a week later, I was not better, no fever, lightheaded, throwing up occasionally, but golfing, and have normal daytime activities. I called the Dr. and asked for something to knock out a bad cold. They had me come in, Oxygen level was 87, blood pressure low, body temperature low 90's. Sent to X-ray, both lower lobes black, blood completely screwed up, kidney indicators showed kidney shutting down. PA said I had Pneumonia and had to go to the hospital. I refused and asked her to treat me there. I knew that if I went to the hospital they would test me, and I would be positive. Then, no treatment. She agreed to give me an IV and treat me with pneumonia protocol. After getting 3 antibiotics, and at the end of the IV bag she came in and told me that she could have tested me for covid, but decided not to. It took 8 weeks to recover to the point I could go back to normal activities. Pretty sure it was covid, but was never tested.

 

2nd was Omicron last September, woke feeling funny low fever, got rapidly worse, dizzy, malaise, puking. Tested positive on home test. Could not get Paxlovid in time, so I took the HCQ, Zinc, Zpack, Ivermectin combination Zelenko/FLCCC protocol. Symptoms did not get worse, and were gone by day 5.

 

Got it again mid December. Same symptoms, Same treatment, Same result. Did not bother with test. Once you have had it, you know what it feels like.

 

Why am I wasting your time telling you all this?

 

I am interested in finding something that helps prevent viral respiratory diseases. For an unknown reason, I seem to be vulnerable to viruses, even if 2 of the last 3 episodes were RSV or Flu instead of Covid, I have to treat them as if they were Covid. I would like to continue going to the gym, and restaurants, and living a normal life. It is not practical or healthy to take antibiotics every 3 or 4 months. I have been vaccinated for Covid, took the first 2. I Don't get flu vaccines because they rarely work, and got sick when I used to take them. I also took the Pneumonia vaccine, maybe it worked and I had Covid, which is what I think happened,

 

So your articles on Echinacea were of great interest with their conclusions that it is effective, to some extent in preventing Covid as well Flu and RSV. It also seems to be effective in reducing the length and seriousness of the illness,

 

I am definitely going to look into the Echinacea. If it does anything positive with regard to prevention, or suppression of the virus it is worth looking into. After all, this is what the vaccines were promised to do, but did not deliver.

 

I am pasting a paragraph from the discussion section of the last study in you post below and would be interested in the thoughts of others. I supplied the emphasis on the last sentence, couldn't resist.

 

Despite the limitations associated with this review (e.g., low number of studies), we believe that our findings are highly relevant, as they provide a rather consistent picture on antiviral and preventive benefits of Echinacea in coronavirus infections overall. Additionally, they have important implications for the preventive use of Echinacea during COVID-19 epidemic. The reduction of coronavirus loads is medically highly relevant as virus concentrations appear to correlate with community transmission, influence illness severity and progression in adults and children [36,37,38,39]. Two clinical studies have shown over 98.5% reduction of coronavirus concentration in nasal secretions obtained from children and adults treated with Echinacea. Evidence is still missing that vaccines significantly reduce viral loads, especially of SARS-CoV-2 delta variant and this asset would be a decisive argument for use of Echinacea during COVID-19 pandemic.

[Hip]

Despite the limitations associated with this review (e.g., low number of studies), we believe that our findings are highly relevant, as they provide a rather consistent picture on antiviral and preventive benefits of Echinacea in coronavirus infections overall. Additionally, they have important implications for the preventive use of Echinacea during COVID-19 epidemic. The reduction of coronavirus loads is medically highly relevant as virus concentrations appear to correlate with community transmission, influence illness severity and progression in adults and children [36,37,38,39]. Two clinical studies have shown over 98.5% reduction of coronavirus concentration in nasal secretions obtained from children and adults treated with Echinacea. Evidence is still missing that vaccines significantly reduce viral loads, especially of SARS-CoV-2 delta variant and this asset would be a decisive argument for use of Echinacea during COVID-19 pandemic.

 

 

That's an interesting extract, I did not see it, but quite remarkable echinacea can reduce SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in the nasal secretions by 98.5%. Presumably that reduction occurs throughout the illness, which might then mean lower chances of transmitting the virus to other people if you are taking echinacea.

 

 

 

I can vouch for echinacea's ability to prevent colds entirely, if taken early enough. The trick is to watch out for any early signs of a respiratory infection, and take a good dose of echinacea immediately on noticing these signs. And then take further doses say 4-6 hours later.

 

I could always tell when a cold was coming on, as I would feel a slight grogginess in the brain, and maybe start getting one or two sneezes. 

 

If these first subtle signs of a cold appear while you are at work, then you really want to take echinacea there and then, rather than waiting to get home to take it (because by the time you get home, the cold may have got worse, and then echinacea may not be able to prevent it manifesting).

 

So I used to have some echinacea in my briefcase when going to work, and if the first sensations of a cold coming on appeared during the day, I had echinacea to hand. 

 

 

 

You could probably augment the cold-preventing effects of echinacea by adding allicin, a garlic extract. I have no experience with allicin as cold preventative, but this study indicates that allicin can cut the incidence of colds by a half. 

Edited by Hip, 09 January 2024 - 06:08 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

Hey joesix, & jeeze you've got hammered over the past couple years. I wish you luck with the Echinacea, but don't know if I'd like to be on this continually. The possible side effects alone on WebMD are a bit discouraging.  

 

https://www.webmd.co...o-981/echinacea

 

"Echinacea is likely safe for most people in the short-term. Various echinacea products have been used safely for up to 10 days."

 

"The most common side effects are stomach pain, constipation, diarrhea, heartburn, vomiting, and rash."

 

Not my cup of tea!  

 

I've reached a point where my "Final Solution" to viral bugs is not aggressive prophylaxis, but to hit them with the biggest hammer I can, as early as I can, and just knock any infection down to a couple days, much as you described above.  

 

I was actually going to post on a different thread on how pleased I've been with zinc acetate lozenges.  My wife picked up a wicked cold, which swiftly moved into her sinuses and chest.  She was off for two weeks for Christmas, and we had been together non-stop.  As soon as I realized she was sick, I started with oral zinc & zinc acetate lozenges.  I actually felt a little scratchy throat one day, but believe I knocked it back.  Wife is still coughing, with green discharge from sinuses into her 3rd week, and I'm still sittin' pretty.  

 

Chris Masterjohn pointed the way to the only zinc lozenge that penetrates tissue (topically) well, and that is zinc acetate.  Only form I've found is Life Extension "Enhanced" Zinc Lozenges.  Look for the zinc acetate on the label before you purchase, as they do have other lozenges that look the same.  This is the good stuff here: 

 

https://www.lifeexte...d-zinc-lozenges

 

Here is Masterjohn explaining why: https://youtu.be/-ZA...t07hke2Yb7efd02

 

I also take oral zinc tabs 3 times a week with a green tea ionophore.  Fresh brewed green tea has both quercetin and EGCG, which are both zinc ionophores.  It's funny, Rubio's fish tacos has fresh brewed green tea, & I've taken to eating the fish for better health and iced green tea for the ionophore.  Have read it may be unwise to supplement zinc every day, so I dose on Monday, Wednesday and Friday only.  

 

Other than this, 2000 IU/day of Vitamin-D helps keep my blood levels up to a decent level, & combined with zinc (+ ionophore), I feel like I keep my immune system in tip-top shape.  

 

I did get COVID in September, but hit it instantly with quinine 300mg/day plus 100mg zinc sulphate, in addition to the zinc lozenges.  Had a scratchy throat one day, and 2 days of fever after that, but by day 4, I was down to a little sinus drainage that lasted 2 days.  Total 5 days, and I never felt wretched, even for a day.  I was on my quinine & high dose zinc for only 2 days; backing off when my fever broke on day 4.  

 

I'm really chuffed with my little protocol, and recommend it highly.  

[joesixpack]

That's an interesting extract, I did not see it, but quite remarkable echinacea can reduce SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in the nasal secretions by 98.5%. Presumably that reduction occurs throughout the illness, which might then mean lower chances of transmitting the virus to other people if you are taking echinacea.

 

 

 

I can vouch for echinacea's ability to prevent colds entirely, if taken early enough. The trick is to watch out for any early signs of a respiratory infection, and take a good dose of echinacea immediately on noticing these signs. And then take further doses say 4-6 hours later.

 

I could always tell when a cold was coming on, as I would feel a slight grogginess in the brain, and maybe start getting one or two sneezes. 

 

If these first subtle signs of a cold appear while you are at work, then you really want to take echinacea there and then, rather than waiting to get home to take it (because by the time you get home, the cold may have got worse, and then echinacea may not be able to prevent it manifesting).

 

So I used to have some echinacea in my briefcase when going to work, and if the first sensations of a cold coming on appeared during the day, I had echinacea to hand. 

 

 

 

You could probably augment the cold-preventing effects of echinacea by adding allicin, a garlic extract. I have no experience with allicin as cold preventative, but this study indicates that allicin can cut the incidence of colds by a half. 

Again thanks for the articles. I have already ordered the Echinacea used in the studies. I have taken more things based on less information over the years. That is what this site is about. Experimentation. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. I will try it out and give thought on your additional thoughts on Allicin. I will let you know what I learn.

[joesixpack]

Hey joesix, & jeeze you've got hammered over the past couple years. I wish you luck with the Echinacea, but don't know if I'd like to be on this continually. The possible side effects alone on WebMD are a bit discouraging.  

 

https://www.webmd.co...o-981/echinacea

 

"Echinacea is likely safe for most people in the short-term. Various echinacea products have been used safely for up to 10 days."

 

"The most common side effects are stomach pain, constipation, diarrhea, heartburn, vomiting, and rash."

 

Not my cup of tea!  

 

I've reached a point where my "Final Solution" to viral bugs is not aggressive prophylaxis, but to hit them with the biggest hammer I can, as early as I can, and just knock any infection down to a couple days, much as you described above.  

 

I was actually going to post on a different thread on how pleased I've been with zinc acetate lozenges.  My wife picked up a wicked cold, which swiftly moved into her sinuses and chest.  She was off for two weeks for Christmas, and we had been together non-stop.  As soon as I realized she was sick, I started with oral zinc & zinc acetate lozenges.  I actually felt a little scratchy throat one day, but believe I knocked it back.  Wife is still coughing, with green discharge from sinuses into her 3rd week, and I'm still sittin' pretty.  

 

Chris Masterjohn pointed the way to the only zinc lozenge that penetrates tissue (topically) well, and that is zinc acetate.  Only form I've found is Life Extension "Enhanced" Zinc Lozenges.  Look for the zinc acetate on the label before you purchase, as they do have other lozenges that look the same.  This is the good stuff here: 

 

https://www.lifeexte...d-zinc-lozenges

 

Here is Masterjohn explaining why: https://youtu.be/-ZA...t07hke2Yb7efd02

 

I also take oral zinc tabs 3 times a week with a green tea ionophore.  Fresh brewed green tea has both quercetin and EGCG, which are both zinc ionophores.  It's funny, Rubio's fish tacos has fresh brewed green tea, & I've taken to eating the fish for better health and iced green tea for the ionophore.  Have read it may be unwise to supplement zinc every day, so I dose on Monday, Wednesday and Friday only.  

 

Other than this, 2000 IU/day of Vitamin-D helps keep my blood levels up to a decent level, & combined with zinc (+ ionophore), I feel like I keep my immune system in tip-top shape.  

 

I did get COVID in September, but hit it instantly with quinine 300mg/day plus 100mg zinc sulphate, in addition to the zinc lozenges.  Had a scratchy throat one day, and 2 days of fever after that, but by day 4, I was down to a little sinus drainage that lasted 2 days.  Total 5 days, and I never felt wretched, even for a day.  I was on my quinine & high dose zinc for only 2 days; backing off when my fever broke on day 4.  

 

I'm really chuffed with my little protocol, and recommend it highly.  

Thanks for the information Dorian, so Echinacea may not be a long term solution, will read the study and keep it in mind. Might be a something to use when going into crowds, going to ball games etc, which is where I may be getting hit. My protocol is a lot like yours, obviously with some differences. I think I can beat it when I get it, I just don't want to get it too often.

 

I do enjoy the free exchange of information on this site, and hope it continues. Everyone continue to relate your experiences with new solutions.

 

The zinc helps me when I get the infection, so far it has not prevented it for me. I don't seem to react to it the same as most people. Best of Luck.