Bad News Thread

Round and round we go...see above. As Campbell argues, it's sufficient, at a minimum, if we really wanted to "do something" that it would be investigated in formalized study by the health agencies and remdesivir was approved on flimsier data.

Weren't those studies that Dr. Campbell reviewed "formalized"?

To my amateur eye, they were inconclusive, slightly above placebo (which, by the way, is not "doing nothing", since the patient must perceive it as equivalent to "doing something" or the test results are invalid). My favorite placebo-ish treatment was that issued by Dr. Frank, the country doctor who lived down the street from us when I was growing up. After determining by telephone that the patient was not in imminent danger of dying, he would suggest "Take two aspirin and call me in the morning", and if the patient did call back he would administer a dose of penicillin the next day, either in his office or during a house call depending on the situation. I survived more than one bad fever with the aspirin, ginger ale, and penicillin routine - has anyone tried that as treatment for covid?
 
I don't happen to trust your internet video, if that's what you mean.

There are thousands of people on the internet claiming to have proof of a new miracle drug. You have found one of them. Good for you. That shows impressive research skills.

If you try really hard, maybe you can find a cat video, too.

If you think you have data, run it through the peer review process and let us know how far you get.
Everything wrong in this post. He’s not claiming to have discovered proof...he’s passing on the studies (since espola as usual doesn’t want to look up past posts on this thread). It’s not a miracle drug...your standard was do something and it seems to have a better record than remdesivir which was approved on less. As for the videos I’m not going to research for hours just to please espola...it’s a good summary and this guy isn’t a nutter...he does a good job of summarizing stuff, interviewing experts and btw he supported the mask mandates. Moreover that’s what he’s calling for: the agencies to take a good hard look at the data which they have refused to do so far despite the evidence that yeah this seems to work....that’s “something” they could do for the unvaccinated if you are so worried about saving them from their choices. Lastly this is like the 4th time you’ve ducked my other illness question. Congratulations. Think you just set a record for most things wrong in a dad4 post.
 
For one, “I like the numbers being where they are. I don't need to have the numbers double because of one ship that wasn't our fault," Trump said in a Fox News interview.
So Predident Trump not wanting a cruise ship with passengers that have covid 19 symptoms to dock in California to prevent further spread is a bad thing.. well to you at least...
 
He’s not claiming to have discovered proof...he’s passing on the studies.. It’s a good summary and this guy isn’t a nutter...he does a good job of summarizing stuff, interviewing experts and btw he supported the mask mandates. Moreover that’s what he’s calling for: the agencies to take a good hard look at the data which they have refused to do so far despite the evidence that yeah this seems to work....that’s “something” they could do for the unvaccinated if you are so worried about saving them from their choices.

[Note: I took out the ad hominem parts and I am responding to what is left above]

Some of what Dr. Campbell posted is very informational about the mechanisms of new vaccines. As for the rest of it, I don't know why he is campaigning so hard for invermectin, since remdesvir has nearly the same results proven in bigger studies. Remdesvir was developed specifically to combat viruses and the mechanism of how it does that is well understood. The same is not true for invermectin -- its recognized use for internal parasites and head lice. (I'm not even sure why they tried it other than perhaps they had some available and were trying everything). Not only that, the FDA has recognized that using large doses is dangerous.

[Now for my ad hominem part -- Notwithstanding that we have thrashed this argument into powder several times now, I am certain you will bring it IP again since your whole schtick seems to be that of a contrarian)
 
[Note: I took out the ad hominem parts and I am responding to what is left above]

Some of what Dr. Campbell posted is very informational about the mechanisms of new vaccines. As for the rest of it, I don't know why he is campaigning so hard for invermectin, since remdesvir has nearly the same results proven in bigger studies. Remdesvir was developed specifically to combat viruses and the mechanism of how it does that is well understood. The same is not true for invermectin -- its recognized use for internal parasites and head lice. (I'm not even sure why they tried it other than perhaps they had some available and were trying everything). Not only that, the FDA has recognized that using large doses is dangerous.

[Now for my ad hominem part -- Notwithstanding that we have thrashed this argument into powder several times now, I am certain you will bring it IP again since your whole schtick seems to be that of a contrarian)

Your lack of understanding is showing. The protocol for rd is much more severe than for iv. It costs more, must be administered in the hospital and as a result has been administered too late to do maximum good. If you are going to do rd, you are better off in any case using the antibody treatments (which are another something public health can do).


as to the ad contrarian thing, that’s hilarious coming from you...or should I just say coo coo.:)
 
By the time it matters, we hope we will have data on the transmissibility of Delta from Pfizer vaccinated patients.

So, if they can transmit, on go the masks. If they cannot, then maybe not. ( Unless we need universal masks to make it enforceable. )
But how can they track if the CDC says that people who have been fully vaccinated and come into contact with a covid positive person no longer need to get tested.

We already know that fully vaccinated people can and do transmit covid to others.
 
Dude, take a class in biological dynamical systems. Or review your differential equations.
I need a class in biological dynamics systems to tell me that the adaptive immune system works better than a shot that is not a vaccine? I need a class in biological dynamics systems to tell me that "Masks reduce the probability of transmission. That’s all. They do not come close to eliminating transmission."?
 
@Multi Sport
This was out in the fox news today. It does have a link about the concerns the CDC is starting to have for the kids.


I disagree we should halt them, particularly in young adults...if the data review does show a problem slap a warning label on it (would also make it harder for school districts and colleges to mandate it as a result)....have parents make up their own minds.
 
Your lack of understanding is showing. The protocol for rd is much more severe than for iv. It costs more, must be administered in the hospital and as a result has been administered too late to do maximum good. If you are going to do rd, you are better off in any case using the antibody treatments (which are another something public health can do).


as to the ad contrarian thing, that’s hilarious coming from you...or should I just say coo coo.:)

Ivermectin has been shown to inhibit the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in cell cultures. However, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies suggest that achieving the plasma concentrations necessary for the antiviral efficacy detected in vitro would require administration of doses up to 100-fold higher than those approved for use in humans.


Does my quoting that seem contrarian to you?
 
Ivermectin has been shown to inhibit the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in cell cultures. However, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies suggest that achieving the plasma concentrations necessary for the antiviral efficacy detected in vitro would require administration of doses up to 100-fold higher than those approved for use in humans.


Does my quoting that seem contrarian to you?

That's not what the actual patient treatment studies are showing and you are dragging a line out of context from an NIH post that basically concludes it should be looked at further. Haha.

And yes....yes it does.
 
I disagree we should halt them, particularly in young adults...if the data review does show a problem slap a warning label on it (would also make it harder for school districts and colleges to mandate it as a result)....have parents make up their own minds.
Yes and no...

"..if the vaccine successfully induces an immune response, which some studies suggest may be more robust than natural exposure to the virus, then could the vaccine incite the inflammatory reaction resulting in MIS-C?


If so, would it be more frequent or severe if the immune response is greater? Couldn’t this place healthy children at risk of a severe outcome from the vaccine who had an extremely low likelihood of getting sick at all? "
 
That's not what the actual patient treatment studies are showing and you are dragging a line out of context from an NIH post that basically concludes it should be looked at further. Haha.

And yes....yes it does.
Somehow, someway he will walk back his statements and start anew..
It's his MO.
 
Your lack of understanding is showing. The protocol for rd is much more severe than for iv. It costs more, must be administered in the hospital and as a result has been administered too late to do maximum good. If you are going to do rd, you are better off in any case using the antibody treatments (which are another something public health can do).


as to the ad contrarian thing, that’s hilarious coming from you...or should I just say coo coo.:)
Leads with the personal attack... and ends with the personal attack.

Glad to see you know your strengths.
 
Ivermectin has been shown to inhibit the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in cell cultures. However, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies suggest that achieving the plasma concentrations necessary for the antiviral efficacy detected in vitro would require administration of doses up to 100-fold higher than those approved for use in humans.


Does my quoting that seem contrarian to you?
With respect to ivermectin having been shown to inhibit replication in cell cultures....

www.xkcd.com/1217
 
Leads with the personal attack... and ends with the personal attack.

Glad to see you know your strengths.
1. I wasn’t the one that led with the personal attack in this exchange. I never start. I only finish
2. Funny coming from you considering the tear you’ve been on recently
 
Back
Top