- This topic has 160 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
I have no problem reviewing various medicines that could be another layer in addition to vaccines, SD, masks, approved medicines.
For guys, who advocate some of these medicines INSTEAD of other things – are these your own ideas and you_all came up with them independently? If not, what is the source of your ideas – friends? radio? web? could you please share
2scents -“The NIH is neither for nor against Ivermectin, its stance is that more studies and data is necessary.”
That’s their excuse for everything that they won’t approve.
It looks like the US is the new Socialist country just like UK.
Look at the News about the Fixlers.“Ivermectin is not as cheap as people make it sound. the FLCCC has a weight-based recommendation, and if you add it up it can cost a few hundred dollars for each patient.”
Do you work for Fauci?
They won’t approve Ivermectin, but they approved Remedsivir.
Remedsivir costs thousands per patient!You guys go after Fauci like a Meshichist goes after Rav Shach. You do realize that he’s for the most part just repeating what the vast majority of the rational and educated world is saying and adding on an extra level of caution?
Yserbius123, how do you know what the “majority of rational and educated world” is saying? I see plenty of “rational and educated” professors, scientists and doctors being anti-lockdowns, anti-masks, and anti-covidvaccines.
In any case, what the majority of any class say is not necessarily relevent to the truth or to what is right. In just one example, the majority of cultured and educated Germans supported Hitler… That the majority of “enlightenment and educated” masses support anyone or anything does not necessarily make it correct.
Yesr -“You do realize that he’s for the most part just repeating what the vast majority of the rational and educated world is saying and adding on an extra level of caution?”
You got it backwards.
He starts with his Orders, like vaccines, but almost nothing else. And all the Fake Media follow it, like he’s G-d!> I see plenty of “rational and educated” professors, scientists and doctors being anti-lockdowns, anti-masks, and anti-covidvaccines.
we just saw that almost all doctors actually took vaccine before mandate. For your good question – 50% of German doctors joined the Nazis, not 95%.
Also, when you claim your scientists are against everything – what is the chance that someone can find scientific argument against vaccines and against masks and against lockdowns and for one specific controversial medicine. This is for me impossible coincidence. It means they all are drinking from the same bucket.
AAQ said: “Also, when you claim your scientists are against everything – what is the chance that someone can find scientific argument against vaccines and against masks and against lockdowns and for one specific controversial medicine. This is for me impossible coincidence. It means they all are drinking from the same bucket.”
And what is the chance that someone could find a scientific argument against gender fluidity, and against homosexuality, and against atheism, and for Creationism… what an impossible coincidence…
This is logically incoherent, because these are not 4 independent issues that are all coincidentally wrong, they are all the product of the same corrupt processes. If the policy makers are mostly either corrupt or extremely biased & working under tremendous political pressures and are making policy choices on the basis of political calculations and emotion while ignoring scientific research, then one should expect to easily find scientific arguments against every single policy and position they promulgate. To borrow AAQ’s own words, it is the policies themselves that are all from the same bucket.
First question – do you accept that there is a pandemic. If you don’t – then, it is indeed easy: you don’t think that there is a threat, there is no need for any intervention, etc. There is no need to ivermectin either. This is, of course, refuted by statistics and personal experience of many people.
Now, if there is a pandemic, there are many independent ways to deal with this – SD, masks, washing surfaces, washing hands, ventilation, (later) vaccines, vitamins, medicines. They were not just invented, these are standard public policies for pandemics. After some experience, some were judged less important (surfaces), the rest are multiple layers of defense. some are more expensive or inconvenient or risky, so I understand why someone will be against masks (convenience) or against SD (love of people), or washing hands (laziness), or vaccines (risk). You seem to say that they are all suspect because they are proposed by “corrupt government”, except the ones that are proposed by a group of “non-corrupt” scientists. This is strange, given that these are standard policies not developed specifically for COVID and accepted during initial emergency by multiple independent-thinking countries and bodies.
Anyway, I am looking how those who are skeptical can positively contribute without causing controversies and opposition when they just call for medicines others like.
Here is my proposal – use CO2 monitors to measure ventilation level in your area schools, shuls, restaurants. CO2 400 is fresh air, CO2 800 is dirty, 1000+ means that the school is either not switching it off or filters are bad and thus all kids breath the same year and pass COVID to each other. Easy way to find most risky locations and help people without paying anything to the government. Just $100 for the hardware.
I was mentioning it here a year ago and did measurements in mosdos near me, but I was not 100% sure it is worth doing around. According to NYT, there is now a whole movement of parents around the country who give kids these monitors and then look at the numbers over time and can see CO2 levels a class or a dining room is – and tell administration to fix the problem. No government involved.
If any of you want to take this challenge we can further discuss details how to do this.
“First question – do you accept that there is a pandemic.”
Covid is real, it is a virus that causes a disease that initially was very dangerous to a narrow demographic and has now become considerably more dangerous in stark contrast to Mullers Ratchet because of a Marek’s Disease vaccine induced evolutionary pressure even to people previously not real risk.“If you don’t – then, it is indeed easy: you don’t think that there is a threat, there is no need for any intervention, etc. There is no need to ivermectin either. This is, of course, refuted by statistics and personal experience of many people.”
I just want to point out that people don’t understand what they are experiencing, for example, if someone’s parent was hospitalized with covid and the hospital killed the parent through negligence not noticeable to the person, he will process his experience as his parent dying of covid.“Now, if there is a pandemic, there are many independent ways to deal with this – SD, masks, washing surfaces, washing hands, ventilation, (later) vaccines, vitamins, medicines. They were not just invented, these are standard public policies for pandemics.”
Actually, masks & social distancing are not only not standard, but were considered to be dumb and counterproductive in all of the pandemic guidance papers written throughout the 2000’s. DA Henderson’s historical overview of pandemics actually concluded that communities fared best during pandemics with the least amount of disruption of normal living. And medicines, and more specifically, repurposing already approved drugs to meet the new pathogen, which was very standard practice, was summarily chucked by the medical/political establishment.
“After some experience, some were judged less important (surfaces), the rest are multiple layers of defense.”
It had almost nothing to do with any actual experience, or else masks/lockdowns/social distancing among everyone not at severe risk would have been discontinued very quickly.“Some are more expensive or inconvenient or risky, so I understand why someone will be against masks (convenience) or against SD (love of people), or washing hands (laziness), or vaccines (risk).”
How about against all of them because they are greatly harmful interventions to both physical health and mental health, they disrupt society, and are child abuse when applied to kids. I am not against hand washing, and nor is anyone remotely credible that I know or have heard of, so it is very disingenuous for you to lump hand washing in with the rest of the policy abominations. People who say that masks and social distancing are just a matter of convenience simply do not comprehend the enormous toll they take on physical/mental health, immune health, etc. See reference to Henderson cited earlier. These policies are killers, as in they cause significant excess mortality. Furthermore, masks spread covid in the hands of the public (something that even Fauci publicly warned about the possibility of early on), and they encourage people to eschew more sensible things that actually help mitigate transmission because they feel that the mask protects them from contracting or spreading covid. Masks/SD were the most abominable and evil policies ever implemented by a civilized country on its own population.“You seem to say that they are all suspect because they are proposed by “corrupt government”,”
I don’t seem to say that, I said it pretty bluntly.“except the ones that are proposed by a group of “non-corrupt” scientists.”
Which policies would those be?? I wasn’t aware that I endorsed any in any post made here. I endorse treatments that work. And I would add that it is indeed logical to put more faith in a group of non-corrupt scientists, as you say, than in institutions corrupted by government and political intrusions and financial entanglements.“This is strange, given that these are standard policies not developed specifically for COVID and accepted during initial emergency by multiple independent-thinking countries and bodies.”
Again, these were not standard. What happened in the beginning was that the western world got whipped into a panicked frenzy, and acted in lockstep, and certainly not on the basis of any sound judgement or deliberative process. I don’t grant a single word of your premise here, as it’s utterly unmoored from reality.“Anyway, I am looking how those who are skeptical can positively contribute without causing controversies and opposition when they just call for medicines others like.”
You do realize that if a medicine like Ivermectin works, then everyone who is against it has blood on their hands, especially those who advocate against it publicly?? I work with doctors who use Ivermectin on patients, as in thousands of them, and none have lost a single patient who came in within 7 days of contracting covid — not. even. one. Let that sink in. The anti-Ivermectin side is not a legitimate debate position, it is pure Nazi evil from the depths of Hell, and a testament to the bottomless corruption at the heart of the medical community (specifically worded that way to exclude most doctors/med professionals who are merely gullible and often intellectually lazy).And you don’t even need Ivermectin to fight covid. Mouthwash with cetylpyridinium chloride and a nasal rinse or spray with Povidone-Iodine if done 2-3x/day is a guarantee that you won’t get seriously ill from covid at all, and almost definitely will not contract it in the first place either.
when I check w/ Ivermectin, I did not see any large studies quantifying the effect, so it is hard to judge. Given the low cost, I am surprised why the proponents were not able to organize that.
I was wondering about nasal sprays myself. This would make sense, provided population can do it. Are there any reliable studies on that?
Masks – I quoted recently a large high-quality study from Bangladesh about effects of masks in real communities. It is very convincing.
SD – I am not calling for anyone (outside of my family) to do hasidut. But everyone could do some reasonable steps according to their abilities – limit travel, parties, stay home for a couple of days after visiting hotspots, do not leave kids with grandparents after schools, open windows in schools, etc. I see, unfortunately, a lot of people who would not lift a finger. There is no charitable explanation for that.
Ventilation, again, would you be interested in testing CO2 levels in mosdos around you? Unlike mouth and hand-washing, this does not require making population do something daily – you can find who has bad ventilation and administration will fix it. Simple, non-intrusive measure.
TU -“You do realize that if a medicine like Ivermectin works, then everyone who is against it has blood on their hands, especially those who advocate against it publicly??”
The problem is – when something is in the Medical realm & unscrupulous People make it a Political or for Financial gain issue.
Eg. – HCQ – When Trump mentioned it – the Media & others laughed.
This was Politics.
The Truth is HCQ has more success than Remdisivir, which the Gov. Approved.
Go look at the studies.“when I check w/ Ivermectin, I did not see any large studies quantifying the effect, so it is hard to judge. Given the low cost, I am surprised why the proponents were not able to organize that.”
It’s hard to judge if you have loony toon evidence standards. I posted earlier regarding this. Take a look at ashmedai.substack “dot” com/p/the-gross-misapplication-of-evidentiary.
Also, I don’t know how you missed all the large studies, specifically the country-level ones that found country wide effects. ואין כאן מקום להאריך
Furthermore, RCT’s are not “low cost”, they cost millions of dollars to set up and execute, which means that a benefactor is required to finance it (like the govt).“Masks – I quoted recently a large high-quality study from Bangladesh about effects of masks in real communities. It is very convincing.”
The Bangladesh study is such a joke that it would get laughed out of an elementary school science fair. I challenge you to explain what they measured and how it relates to what the study’s authors were claiming to see from the study. I think that you have no idea what the study actually found or how they assessed the raw data etc., but you’re quoting it nonetheless because you heard someone else say it was “high quality” and you’re merely regurgitating that which you heard without understanding a כי הוא זה about the study itself.“I was wondering about nasal sprays myself. This would make sense, provided population can do it. Are there any reliable studies on that?”
The FLCCC in their documentation on their website explaining their protocols references the studies underlying the treatments they advocate for.Health stated: “TU -“You do realize that if a medicine like Ivermectin works, then everyone who is against it has blood on their hands, especially those who advocate against it publicly??”
The problem is – when something is in the Medical realm & unscrupulous People make it a Political or for Financial gain issue.
Eg. – HCQ – When Trump mentioned it – the Media & others laughed.
This was Politics.
The Truth is HCQ has more success than Remdisivir, which the Gov. Approved.
Go look at the studies.”
I don’t understand how you said is responding to what I said. The political interference in medicine does not excuse anyone who weighs in on the issue publicly for failing to do even cursory research into the sugya (ie more than a superficial tallying of how many studies exist that fit preconceived notions of what evidence should look like) My point was that AAQ’s argument – ““Anyway, I am looking how those who are skeptical can positively contribute without causing controversies and opposition when they just call for medicines others like.”” –
is unsettling, because it cavalierly dismisses what is claimed to be a miracle drug against covid on the grounds that it causes controversy, which makes it an absurd argument on its face.Remdesivir is a total zero, HCQ is pretty effective with proper dosing, timing, and companion drugs/supplements, but Ivermectin dwarfs HCQ in efficacy. There is a reason that all of the FLCCC protocols are built on Ivermectin and not HCQ.
TU -“I don’t understand how you said is responding to what I said. The political interference in medicine does not excuse anyone who weighs in on the issue publicly for failing to do even cursory research into the sugya (ie more than a superficial tallying of how many studies exist that fit preconceived notions of what evidence should look like) My point was that AAQ’s argument – ““Anyway, I am looking how those who are skeptical can positively contribute without causing controversies and opposition when they just call for medicines others like.”” –
is unsettling, because it cavalierly dismisses what is claimed to be a miracle drug against covid on the grounds that it causes controversy, which makes it an absurd argument on its face.”What do you think that anybody who posts to you – must be arguing?!?
I was agreeing with your post & adding to it.> I challenge you to explain what they measured
I read the study, maybe not extremely carefully. Here is my imperfect recollection: the goal was to see group effects, not just individual people. They chose 100s of villages in different parts of the country, divided them in pairs of similar ones, then applied public measures in one set and kept the rest as controls. Most of measures were giving out masks of different types publicly, combined with public messages, and various incentives. Then, they measured number of people who turned up visibly sick, and send observers to measure mask compliance and level of SD. I summarized the results here previously.
> Cavalierly dismisses what is claimed to be a miracle drug
I am not dismissing anything. I am just looking at less controversial ways to help our communities. Even the most miraculous drugs may stop a person from dying, but the virus already did damage to the body. Obviously, prevention is a key. So, we have certain measures that also became controversial for whatever practical and political reasoning. So, I am suggesting people do CO2 monitoring of their mosdos – easy to do, does not involve medical procedures. Could you help people in your community?
I am not a scientist and certainly not a pharmacologist. I have no idea what mechanisms Ivermectin proponents propose or the double-blind studies I have seen indicate that it doesn’t work (so there probably isn’t a real mechanism).
However, your argument is profoundly unscientific. The idea of science as a different field of study from philosophy is that it starts with observation and only then looks for the mechanisms to explain that observation.
For example, Newton observed gravity by seeing things fall and the movement of the planets and realizing that mathematically they could be calculated the same way. But Newton did not have any explanation of how objects attracted each other. (Indeed the mechanism of gravity is controversial to this day) It did not matter, however, because he, and we, can consistently observe gravity happening.This has been the case with many medications as well. The proposed mechanism is only arrived at after the medication is observed to work. For example Penicillin was discovered and used as an antibiotic for years before a theory of its mechanism was proposed.
Ivermectin doesn’t work. But if studies had shown that it did, its mechanism could be worked out later.
As advised, I looked at 4 top papers at FLCCC site ivermectin section:
1 study: shows 75% improvement use in prophylactics reducing viral load in young people in Dominican Republic. Authors explicitly say that this is a tool in addition to vaccination.
2nd: study is withdrawn by the referred journal
3rd: Israeli preprint similar to (1) on a small sample, results claim 3x improvement, but plot over time shows less improvement with a jump up on the last day, others have questions about study design
4th: a meta-review describing
– multiple trials, some showing 3x or no improvement in PCR with lower death rates on small samples.
– comparison of pairs of towns in South America – same idea as Bangladesh study, but without proper design. There is no way to check whether towns are comparable, etc. Claimed results are similar to mask wearing: 2x reduction rates.
Many of the results above are pre-DeltaOverall, this conforms to my impression: this is a hopeful tool, especially in poor countries, but even
most optimistic claimed results say that this is another layer in defense, in now way a substitute for vaccines, masks, etc – and some of the authors say exactly same thing.AAQ -“As advised, I looked at 4 top papers at FLCCC site ivermectin section: Etc.
Overall, this conforms to my impression: this is a hopeful tool, especially in poor countries, but even
most optimistic claimed results say that this is another layer in defense, in now way a substitute for vaccines, masks, etc – and some of the authors say exactly same thing.”Are you a worshiper of our government?!?
Because they believe that if you take Vaccines that solves the Pandemic.
They are in some sort of Dream World!
I personally took the Vaxx for Covid19, but it’s not a solution.
They need therapies, like Ivermectin.You only quoted 4 studies, so that is why you came to your conclusion -“Overall, this conforms to my impression: this is a hopeful tool, etc.”
It should be in the protocol for Covid19.
The government has No excuse for Not including it!
From C19early.com:
“Systematic review and meta analysis of 19 RCTs showing mortality RR 0.31 [0.15-0.62].
Hariyanto et al., 6/6/2021, peer-reviewed, 5 authors.
risk of death, 69.0% lower, RR 0.31, p = 0.001.”“I am not dismissing anything. I am just looking at less controversial ways to help our communities. Even the most miraculous drugs may stop a person from dying, but the virus already did damage to the body. Obviously, prevention is a key. So, we have certain measures that also became controversial for whatever practical and political reasoning. So, I am suggesting people do CO2 monitoring of their mosdos – easy to do, does not involve medical procedures. Could you help people in your community?”
I am on the phone almost every night for hours with people who require treatment/prophylaxis for either covid or the vaccine, and helping them to get the necessary treatments. I am involved in one of the lawsuits challenging the vaccine mandates, and a bunch of other things that I can’t mention because of the sensitivity of the matter or individuals/institutions involved. I have seen firsthand that Ivermectin works, I know many, many people who were treated with it early, many whom were old &/or comorbidity ridden, and not a single one died. NOT ONE. There are a number of doctors in the US who have had similar results to what I just mentioned. The anti-Ivermectin movement is a Nazi-esque depraved murder movement that is immune to evidence in the practical sense of the word. Reliance on RCT’s or massive controlled studies of other sorts is not “best practice”, it’s corrupt and defies common sense. Clinical experience of doctors treating with a drug reproduced all over the world and even on country-wide levels through mass distribution campaigns is the ultimate, and indeed also unrebuttable, evidence of efficacy.
“> I challenge you to explain what they measured
I read the study, maybe not extremely carefully. Here is my imperfect recollection: the goal was to see group effects, not just individual people. They chose 100s of villages in different parts of the country, divided them in pairs of similar ones, then applied public measures in one set and kept the rest as controls. Most of measures were giving out masks of different types publicly, combined with public messages, and various incentives. Then, they measured number of people who turned up visibly sick, and send observers to measure mask compliance and level of SD. I summarized the results here previously.”
Here is an analysis (not mine, but I’m constrained for time to write one up myself from scratch):
The overall effects of this study are miniscule—0.07% absolute reduction in seroprevalence. But the topline finding is “We decreased seroprevalence by 10%!”
Technically true…
But even this finding is questionable. Let’s explore.
<b>What the study ACTUALLY measures is the impact of mask promotion on symptom reporting.</b> Only if a person reports symptoms, are they asked to participate in a serology study—and only 40% of those with symptoms chose to have their blood taken.
Is it possible that that highly moralistic framing and monetary incentives given to village elders for compliance might dissuade a person from reporting symptoms representing individual and collective moral failure—one that could cost the village money? Maybe?
Given that the difference is tiny, if this had even a small impact, it could completely skew the results. Might the same factors be at play when an individual weighed whether or not to be tested? After all, a positive test would indicate that your village was “failing”
The fact that age stratification shows that interventions had no impact on younger people, but did on older people calls this finding into question. There is no physical mechanism by which universal masking would protect the elderly, but not the young.
Such a result could be explained by the mask promotion campaign creating a sense of fear that resulted in elderly sequestering themselves. If that were the case, a more elderly-targeted approach could achieve the same results.
It is also possible that elderly people in intervention groups were less likely to report symptoms. 60+ are 2-3x more likely to be symptomatic than <40. Again, when having symptoms means you failed your village, might you choose not to mention them?
Perhaps the most compelling aspect of the study is the difference between surgical and cloth mask villages. The authors claim that this is supported by the different filtration efficiencies of cloth and surgical masks.
However, these filtration efficiencies are taken in a no-gap scenario. And there is ALWAYS a gap. We can see that when considering gaps—the most important element of filtration–fabric & surgical masks perform nearly identically–not at all.
Given physical improbability, it is possible that this effect too, might be an artifact of bias in the control group. Surgical masks are “fancier,” & might feel like more of an intervention, and may make those in such a village even more likely to repress symptom reporting.
Whatever the result of the surgical masks, this shows that the impact from cloth masks is 0. (.02% absolute reduction and a p-value of 0.540 is zero, even if the authors want to pretend otherwise).
Color me skeptical on this one. This study increased mask wearing to 40%. In much of blue America mask compliance approached 100% for almost a year. Even with that kind of incredible compliance, there was no impact on case transmission rates.
<End Analysis>
This is just scratching the surface of the junk science that is the Bangladesh mask farce. This is how so many people get deluded by the vast reams of studies out there that are mostly junk science propaganda sporting methodology so poor that the most likely explanation is deliberate malfeasance.
“As advised, I looked at 4 top papers at FLCCC site ivermectin section: etc.”
I will respond re the studies when I have sufficient time to do so, but I will say for now that your comprehension of the Ivermectin studies is about as good as your comprehension of the Bangladesh “study”.
whomever you are quoting on Bangladesh study raises a couple of interesting questions based on the fact taht a study like that is not blinded – people know that they are getting masks. But they skew the results somewhat – 7% number is for cloth masks, higher for surgical masks – and when compliance is only 40% indeed.
Biggest objection seems to be – the commenter can not envision what is a mechanism of different rate of decreasing symptoms between older and younger.
Effects on older people were indeed more significant. Was it partially due to increased distancing (as reported)? possibly. I don’t see anything bad in that. The whole goal of the study was to find public policies that work. Remember early incorrect predictions by virologists playing public policy experts saying that masks will cause decrease in SD? That seems to be wrong.
But a simple explanation that removes the objection is that effect of the doze does not have to be proportional. An older person might get such more significantly with more exposure and masking mitigates those cases.
Another note: mask compliance in “blue America” is well south of 100%.
Again, the objections raise a couple of interesting points. I would try blinding it, for example, by providing defective surgical masks as controls. But a claim that “fancier” masks lead to consistently different rate of reporting is grasping for straws. To the strength of the study, there are multiple other intervention that they tried that did not show any effect. So, there is no easy bias introduced into this data.
ToraUmada,
Since you have put yourself out there, what other treatments do you offer for Covid patients and overall how is the disease managed?
Lastly, under what context is the treatment administered, inpatient? Outpatient? Clinic? Home based care?
2scents -“ToraUmada,
Since you have put yourself out there, what other treatments do you offer for Covid patients and overall how is the disease managed?”TU posted a few times that he isn’t an actual practioner, but a researcher.
But I am, but I charge for Medical Knowledge/Protocols.Health,
The post was directed to TU, and in reference to what TU wrote.
“I am on the phone almost every night for hours with people who require treatment/prophylaxis for either covid or the vaccine, and helping them to get the necessary treatments. ”
” I have seen firsthand that Ivermectin works, I know many, many people who were treated with it early, many whom were old &/or comorbidity ridden, and not a single one died.”
Since TU put this out there, I was just curious as to the context of the treatments TU is offering other than Ivermectin and in what context.
I was not asking for advice, nor are you high on my list of people I would reach out for advanced medical knowledge.
Besides, its funny that you mention that you charge for advice, without flouting your credentials but you want us all to accept your online persona. Furthermore, you frequently post what you consider as medical knowledge, for someone that wants compensation in exchange for their knowledge, you do a whole lot of sharing here for free.
Maybe a better question than “Please explain Ivermectin” would be “Please explain the difference between anecdotes and scientific studies.” There are many people posting anecdotes as if they are scientific proof that Ivermectin does or does not work against Covid.
for the practitioners out here,
so you get calls from people who got sick. These people are indicators that they were in unsafe environment. Especially if these people are from Jewish communities, maybe you can trace then to shul and schools they and their families attend? You can then review wit these schools their safety protocols, starting with most likely problem – ventilation.AAQ,
Will better ventilation eliminate the virus from living amongst us?
With regards to schools, will better ventilation reduce children from contracting the virus, especially if they play together and interact with each other at different times?
Is there anything that points to successful elimination or total reduction in people infected with the virus, or mortality when having better ventilation?
…because if they are from those Jewish communities they couldn’t have gotten it from stores, gas stations, dry cleaners, malls, waiting rooms, post offices, customers, vendors, repair men, airports, airplanes, passersby, delivery men who needed signatures, medical personnel, receptionists or other. It must be those darn shuls where they insist on praying with those other jews who keep praying there too. Even tho they’ve all been repeatedly exposed to each other without incident for a year, those jews and their darn shuls are just the bottom line of all this stuff.
AAQ – please stay clear of missionaries. The cultists behaviors you display here indicate you might be at risk. Stay safe, okay?
2scents, Syag – prolonged contact seems to be more dangerous.
A simple explanation, not sure whether it captures the whole phenomenon: a person gets initial load, immune system starts reacting. Now, it is a race – virus propagating deeper and doing it’s job or immunity building up. So, the more initial load is, the more chances that the virus will win over immunity. There are a lot of secondary indicators of this: cases at home; increase in cases in US South during summer (AC, less outdoors) and in the North during winter (heat, less outdoors).
Other than that, may depend on the lifestyle. I presume that the kids spend most of the day at school, adults at work and in shul and beis midrash. If someone spends the day in the airport, talking to passerbys in the mall, in medical offices, then, of course, they are at risk there also.
But I presume that airports and malls do HVAC and most responsible medical offices (most of our doctors sent us email about that months ago). I helped a couple of mosdos on this, but don’t know what the overall picture is.
AAQ,
You are basing this on the assumption that.
a. More exposure equals greater viral load.
b. Once someone is infected, additional contact with other infected persons will result in a greater viral load.
c. Greater viral load is a factor as to how effective the immune response will be.
d. Better ventilation reduces viral load and additional infections.
2scents -“Besides, its funny that you mention that you charge for advice, without flouting your credentials but you want us all to accept your online persona. Furthermore, you frequently post what you consider as medical knowledge, for someone that wants compensation in exchange for their knowledge,”
If you want my credentials – post your contact info & I’ll contact you. And I’ll tell you my prices.
Or you could just be like a lot of other so-called Medical guys and keep watching people die.
How many US citizens have died already?!?“you do a whole lot of sharing here for free.”
I give medical advice here for free.
This is called Chessed.
But it’s only general, not individualized!Syag -“because if they are from those Jewish communities they couldn’t have gotten it from stores, gas stations, dry cleaners, malls, waiting rooms, post offices, customers, vendors, repair men, airports, airplanes, passersby, delivery men who needed signatures, medical personnel, receptionists or other, etc.”
What I see here in Lakewood, I know you live elsewhere, most Goyim are masked.
Almost No Yidden are.
The Goyim that aren’t – it’s very easy Not to have close contact with!“Maybe a better question than “Please explain Ivermectin” would be “Please explain the difference between anecdotes and scientific studies.” There are many people posting anecdotes as if they are scientific proof that Ivermectin does or does not work against Covid.”
This is actually a great question. Unfortunately, people really have no conception of what a study is or demonstrates in real life.
The answer is that studies are nothing more than a group of documented ‘anecdotes’ where more of the underlying context is controlled and known, allowing more robust inferences with more statistical power (ie confidence/reliability) to be drawn from the “anecdotes” documented by the study. The strength and reliability of inferences entirely depends on the quality (and honesty) pf a study’s design & execution. Critically, not all studies are equal, and some are even worse than regular anecdotes (I’m limiting anecdote to a reasonably verified story, not some vagueish rumor for the purposes of this argument), because a poorly designed study can give categorically false results whereas anecdotes “are often the leading indicator of an undiscovered negative side effect, or even an unanticipated positive outcome in new drugs” (approximate quote from a review of the hierarchy of evidence in “evidence based medicine”, I will post source when I find it). Here’s an example that actually happened recently: WHO major multi-pronged drug trial added an arm to test Famotidine + Celecoxib on hospitalized covid patients, but layered them upon a backbone treatment regiment of Remdesivir & Dexamethasone, which are contra-indicated for Fam+Cel & are mevatel them, and the WHO trial was warned by the docs who ran the small trial that found the initial success of Fam+Cel that this was the case (in fact, Dexa was specifically used as a control vs the Celecoxib and they found that Dexa was harmful by comparison (there’s a reason that the FLCCC uses Methylprednisolone as the steroid of choice and not Dexamethasone)), and of course the WHO trial found no initial effect compared to control group, and dropped them from the trial altogether “concluding” that they don’t work.
Or you can take the Bangladesh study, where they neglected to establish a baseline infection rate prior to commencement of the study (big confounder), they matched towns without any real attempt to bother characterizing any of them for other relevant characteristics, they measured “reported symptoms” as a proxy to establish primary & secondary endpoint efficacy (I’m pretty sure that the study was initially designed to see what measures could increase mask compliance), which is a total and complete joke, as the study design straight up incentivized non-reporting and even straight up lying by the mask towns from financial and other various social incentives, and even their finding was so tiny that it has zero statistical power in any event with a stratospheric p-value (IY”H I hope to post a more thorough analysis of this garbage heap).
It is worth reemphasizing, studies are nothing more than documentation of a series of ‘anecdotes’ that are (hopefully) more rigorously documented and characterized so we can better understand what is actually happening (and if a one off real anecdote is more than a statistical randomness). They are not any sort of magical fount of knowledge.
Another critical point is that just because the authors of a study say something does not make it true, or even mean that it is supported by the study’s own data. Especially now, you have to go through the study itself to see if the study’s authors are competent and/or honest (which these days is the case more often than not, see John Ioannidis’ recent essay documenting how literally every branch of science – all the way through automotive engineering – has somehow published on covid).
And just for those who will immediately leap to respond that “anecdotes are fundamentally different than studies because anecdotes we know nothing about the context whereas studies are by definition a documented & controlled group of cases where we can compare/contrast all the details etc”, I already acknowledged this above and I disagree with the characterization of this as a fundamental intrinsic difference also per above.
(For the record, I haven’t forgotten about the other posts I said I’d respond to.)
“AAQ,
You are basing this on the assumption that:
a. More exposure equals greater viral load.
b. Once someone is infected, additional contact with other infected persons will result in a greater viral load.
c. Greater viral load is a factor as to how effective the immune response will be.
d. Better ventilation reduces viral load and additional infections.”AAQ is essentially correct on first 3, and I would qualify #4 that it depends on how much viral load would there be floating around without ventilation and what % is rendered non-viable or is expelled altogether, which can vary widely; and there is not adequate documentation that moderate ventilation, especially for schools, makes much of a difference. (airplanes use top-notch ventilation, and it is strongly implied in the complete lack of significant cases of airplane transmission)
2scents:> You are basing this on the assumption that.
> a. More exposure equals greater viral load.
yes, if two people are nearby, one is puffing virus, virus stays in the aerosol, ventilation is not working, the second person continues inhaling aerosol. I saw similar logic in multiple research papers on the topic.> b. Once someone is infected, additional contact with other infected persons will result in a greater viral load.
only in a short time period. If one exposure leads to immune system reacting, then further exposures days later will be mitigated by the developed antibodies.
> c. Greater viral load is a factor as to how effective the immune response will be.
Yes. Virus starts with the initial intake, and then starts replicating. At the same time, immune system starts reacting. It is a race depends on initial starting point and quality of carious systems. Again, this is documented.
> d. Better ventilation reduces viral load and additional infections.
Yes, Ventilation removes aerosol containing virus. Best is increase in outside air intake. Many HVACs have a control – put outside intake to the maximum possible. Opening windows is as good. If can’t do it continuously, open windows every 30 minutes or so.
Historical trivia: some houses built in 1920s have huge heat radiators covered by metal enclosures. They were built (sans enclosures) after 1918 flu with the goal of being able to open windows to ventilate and run heating at the same time. When Great Depression came and also fear of flu decreased, they put enclosures to slow down heating as it was too expensive.
If air is circulated, filters should be MERV-15, I think, or better – need to check what HVAC can handle. The higher the filtration, the harder HVAC needs to work, there might be a limit.
Also, see that HVAC is not blowing directly from one person to another.
There were early suggestions to use dividers. This changed – dividers may create areas of non-circulating air. So, ok to put a couple in strategic areas – near a teacher or a cashier, for example, but not on all sides near every student.
TU,
Re airplane example with regards to ventilation, there are other factors such as screening patients making sure they are not symptomatic.
Re decadron vs solumedrol as the steroid of choice. If u peak at the studies they are comparing 6mg if decadron to 125mg of solumedrol. The decadron was not a full loading dose (10 or 12mg). Vs the solumedrol that had full loading doses.
TU
“ AAQ is essentially correct on first 3, and I would qualify #4 that it depends on how much viral load would there be floating around without ventilation and what % is rendered non-viable or is expelled altogether, which can vary widely;”
What is the basis to this?
TU > how much viral load would there be floating around without ventilation and what % is rendered non-viable or is expelled altogether
Rather than relying on the studies, I did tests myself using air quality monitor:
A fully closed small office with 6 computer seats and reasonable ventilation: CO2 level stays normal with 1 person, starts going up after 10 minutes with 2 people. With one door open to an internal corridor, stays normal with 3 people. PPMs stayed low in all cases (except when there was a BBQ outside), that is this particular HVAC was filtering something out, but HVAC outside air intake is low.A shul with 10 people with place for 40 – CO2 goes up with HVAC and everything closed. Is normal with a door and 3 windows half-open.
This adds – just opening the door to the corridor helps.
“2scents wrote:
ToraUmada,
Since you have out yourself out there, what other treatments do you offer for Covid patients and overall how is the disease managed?
Lastly, under what context is the treatment administered, inpatient? Outpatient? Clinic? Home based care?”I don’t personally provide ‘care’ in the clinical sense. I advise people who ask on what treatment options are available and indicated for them, and try to put them in contact with a doctor who can treat them or prescribe for them. Anyone who came to me and had moderate covid, I will give them Ivermectin myself if I have & they can’t obtain it within a few hours, but I always forward cases onward to greater experts in the doctor group that I belong to, and to a few of the big big guns if it seems potentially complicated. I get far more requests about vaccine injuries/side effects and prophylaxis, especially recently with the vaccine mandates. The most intense situation I was involved in re covid was helping to arrange for a sick, elderly patient to be transported to a hospital 200 miles away so he could get treated with the FLCCC protocols by someone I had contact with who happened to be at that particular hospital and was able to somehow miraculously navigate the hospital admin/bureaucracy, when the hospital that he was going to be taken to was adamantly opposed to Ivermectin. (He ultimately recovered). I know of so many specific cases through other doctors who treat or work with the ones who treat covid with Ivermectin +.
Prophylaxis/early treatment is by definition out-patient. As far as I’m concerned, Mt Sinai (and I assume for other hospitals until proven otherwise) is a covid death trap or long covid trap to someone with severe covid and at high risk (google Bucko Ivermectin court case), and if you can get someone WITH MEDICAL/CLINICAL INTUITION to treat not in hospital with proper drug combo, stay out of the hospital. I know a few DOCTORS who did exactly that because they feared that if they went to the hospital, they wouldn’t be coming home again (approx. quote from one).
I’ll just add 2 prophylaxis options besides Ivermectin that are almost foolproof:
1. if you have vitamin D >50, you’re essentially immune from serious covid & complications, regardless of age/comorbidities (and a recent meta-study on vitamin D studies even concluded such – “COVID-19 mortality risk correlates inversely with vitamin D3 status, and a mortality rate close to zero could theoretically be achieved at 50 ng/ml 25(OH)D3: Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis”). (Active Vit D (calcitriol) and even precursor form (calcifediol) are even very effective treatments for ICU covid patients, significantly reduce mortality anywhere from 40-80% (hard to pin down because of confounds and lack of broader uptake at least in documented cases or by docs who talk about using it, one doc said that FDA banned compounding of calcifediol per his pharmacist.)
2. If you use mouthwash with cetylpyridinium chloride & povidone-iodine nasal rinse/drops/spray 2x a day (FLCCC pres Dr. Pierre Kory I heard say 3x if known exposure or test positive, keeping viral load down is absolutely critical), similarly near perfect record of success per doctors I know that encourage their patients (it’s a shame how these brave and heroic docs have to be so secretive about this, cuz if word got out they would be investigated by their medical boards and possibly lose their accreditation and jobs), but you have to do this wholeheartedly, not tepidly gargling for half a second in half your mouth, gargle in throat as deep as you can hold it, these are viricidals that kill on contact.Obviously, please no one run with what I wrote and make sure to find a competent doctor or at least look up the FLCCC protocols yourself so you understand the situation. For the record, there is no replacement for a competent doctor with clinical intuition derived from treating patients for decades, but the basic treatments are far far far better than nothing even if using a general dosing principles as direct guidance for personal use. (Mods, maybe you can bold this last paragraph?)
AAQ – my point was that the efficacy is quantifying the amount of virus reduced, so it only makes a significant difference if there is a meaningful amt to start with & it decreases by meaningful amt. Yes, “meaningful” isn’t a number, just a proxy term of art for an amount of viral particles that would’ve caused “X” number of infections (X being whatever number is decided as the threshold for significance).
“Re airplane example with regards to ventilation, there are other factors such as screening patients making sure they are not symptomatic.”
Yes, but still given the sheer volume of flights and close quarters which passengers are to each other, I don’t think that by itself adequately accounts for the lack of transmission (pre-symptomatic can spread, and very mild symptomatic can easily avoid detection, especially if the person puts effort into hiding it)
“Re decadron vs solumedrol as the steroid of choice. If u peak at the studies they are comparing 6mg if decadron to 125mg of solumedrol. The decadron was not a full loading dose (10 or 12mg). Vs the solumedrol that had full loading doses.”
The low dose was only one of the dexa probs. Malone’s study didn’t underdose on Dexa, and still found it to be comparatively horrible and possibly nasty side effect profile to boot. Steroids & covid are tricky business (Celecoxib/Famotidine was evaluating by proxy steroids vs NSAID too). FLCCC docs are pretty against Dexa based on clinical experience and mech analysis.
2scents -“Re decadron vs solumedrol as the steroid of choice. If u peak at the studies they are comparing 6mg if decadron to 125mg of solumedrol. The decadron was not a full loading dose (10 or 12mg). Vs the solumedrol that had full loading doses.”
Do you use Steroids for Covid 19 and are there exceptions?
(Not talking about OP.)for Syag,
I just looked up a recent case study from a Belgium 1-12 school where traced cases at school as much as they could. Teachers were masked, students were not. Ths is pre-delta. They were able to trace about half of cases to either in-school or at-home transmission. The rest are unknown. So, school and home have a significant part. Among known transmissions, 2/3 were at school, 1/3 at home. School ones were about equally distributed between adult-adult, adult-child, child-child.Health,
so if you are in Lakewood, maybe you want to follow up with the mosdos where cases are coming from and check their CO2 levels and train them to set HVAC correctly, open windows, etc in case they are not doing this. If you are short on funds or time, let’s arrange a dead drop near BMG where I can arrange to drop a monitor for you, or you can leave a list of mosdos to work with.recent study from Sweden, comparing family members of an immune person v. comparable non-immune person. 50% reduction in transmission due to immune person. That is (my inference), half of transmissions are within families. This is pre-delta, same effect for disease, one or two vaccines and relatively early after vaccines. They caution that delta transmission may be higher under 1 vaccine.
In other news, US blood donors are now 83% immune as of July, of which 20% are naturally. 65+ are 92% of which 11% naturally (age is wisdom). Blood donors are not the same as overall distribution, of course. I presume most stubborn deniers of everything, do not part with their blood easily.
My projection: number of vaccinated people increases by 3% a month, number of cases by 2% (1% detected, 2x ratio of detected to not detected). So, US will be almost fully immune in a couple of months, not counting the most stubborn population.
Health,
“ Do you use Steroids for Covid 19 and are there exceptions?”
Most inpatient protocols call for steroids when the patients are hypoxic or have elevated CRPs.
Early steroid treatment may be detrimental. Timing is key.
TU
“ The low dose was only one of the dexa probs. Malone’s study didn’t underdose on Dexa, and still found it to be comparatively horrible and possibly nasty side effect profile to boot. ”
Can you please direct me to this study?
Re ventilation, while you may have objective measurable metrics doesnt mean that it actually matters.
As the saying goes, not everything that can be counted counts.
TU
You claim to have directed people to hospitals that follow the FLCCC recommendations.
A. I am curious to know what hospital that may be.
B. Aside from Ivermectin, which can be given outpatient, what other treatments are local hospitals denying patients?
TU
“ I get far more requests about vaccine injuries/side effects and prophylaxis, especially recently with the vaccine mandates.”
What are the extent of the injuries, and what role do you play diagnosing and treating these patients?
AAQ -“so if you are in Lakewood, maybe you want to follow up with the mosdos where cases are coming from, etc.”
Your post cracks me up!
I guess you didn’t get the Gist of my post before.
The Frum people here, at least most of them, couldn’t care less about Covid.
That’s why I hardly go out. When I do – I’m masked up.
I’m sure that I’ve been exposed to Covid, but taking the Vaxx & Quercetin with Zinc, I didn’t get overly sick.
I also believe that shouldn’t get a lot of exposure to reduce the Viral load!Health > I guess you didn’t get the Gist of my post before. The Frum people here, at least most of them, couldn’t care less about Covid.
I understood that before, and this probably clarifies your overall interest in treatment v. vaccine.
This is exactly why I am proposing an improvement that does not rely on public involvement. Would administration agree to changing HVAC setting to higher outside air, changing a filter, or keeping a door/window open? If there is a cluster of cases tied to a place, hopefully administration will listen.
In some cases, this can be done without consulting anyone. If you are able to change HVAC setting and it will cost them money for extra heating, send a donation or tell me where to send it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.