We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, September 7. 2021
Two utterly fascinating facts about COVID
Addicted to Videogames
NY Times Blames Global Warming For Hurricane Ida…Like clockwork.
What happens when you get canceled (and why)
Illinoisans Paid Almost as Much on Unemployment as at Work
It’s now obvious that Biden doesn’t even want to stop the ever-growing border surge
Five reasons Biden's approval ratings have taken a pounding
China's Marxist "Profound Revolution" Is Here
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Facts about covid article just underscores how we are all watching two different screens. I don't know anyone, who is not aware of those utterly fascinating facts.
Just to be clear, it's not honest to focus solely on death rates. If you draw the short straw it is a nasty disease with an array of potential long term side effects, and sometimes permanent damage. Per the FLCCC, the side effects may impact 20-30% of people who have had covid, other sources say 10 -20%
Dr. Ioannidis concluded that most locations around the world have an IFR that's less than 0.20%.
The population fatality rate (crude mortality rate) is already 0.20% in the U.S., and people are still dying at a rate of a thousand a day. Consequently, the infection fatality rate in the U.S. is greater than 0.20%.
Country, Population Fatality Rate
Ivermectin is such a miracle drug that it won the Nobel Prize.
The drug's developers winning the Nobel Prize has nothing to do with showing its effectiveness against COVID-19. The cited meta-study relies on flawed studies, such Elgazzar et al., which was withdrawn.
Once again you're wrong.
Winning the Nobel prize is related to its relevant safety.
Furthermore you wrote "The cited meta-study relies on flawed studies" but only cited one flawed study. How many are still accepted? What are the results.
You are repeatedly wrong when you try to write about science. Actually, you're always wrong, but the science is easy to demonstrate.
DrTorch: Winning the Nobel prize is related to its relevant safety.
All drugs have possible side-effects, including likely interactions with other medicines the patient may be taking. Relevant safety therefore includes efficacy.
DrTorch: Furthermore you wrote "The cited meta-study relies on flawed studies" but only cited one flawed study.
Garbage in, garbage out. The authors can always republish, taking into account possible problems with the data.
Focusing on disease fatality rate is a slanted statistic. It depends on the frequency and contagion of the disease how important that would be. There are rare diseases which are always fatal. There are diseases with low fatality rates that are considered dangerous only because they are so common.
Driving accidents are so rare per mile that measuring the value of wearing seat belts for a mile would kick out a very low number. But the more miles you drive, the more you would have to be nuts not to wear one.
I don't get why so much of the readership here is so set on proving that Covid is no big deal that they ignore the simplest rules of getting both sides of a story. We only like those things that confirm our priors, apparently.
"I don't get why so much of the readership here is so set on proving that Covid is no big deal that they ignore the simplest rules of getting both sides of a story."
If this in response to me, I'm confused. Maybe it's me, but I don't think that I implied that "covid is no big deal", do you think I did?
What happens when you get canceled (and why) ...
That's weird. I thought Colin Kaepernick didn't get cancelled, he got fired, for being a lousy quarterback. And then when presented with opportunities to try out and perhaps regain his status, he squandered the opportunities by publicity-hounding instead, and ultimately didn't show up. Cancelled. Huh.
Kaep's not that great an example. He was no longer a clear starter, and backup QBs are judged by different criteria. If you aren't able to improve to take the job from the starter, or aren't the same sort of player as the starter so that you can fill in on a moment's notice, then you need to be very good in the QB room, supporting what the team is trying to do, pointing out things the coaches and teammates can use. Kaepernick was not the first or third of those - in fact he was a liability because of his personality and likely to negatively affect younger players. He likely did fit the second criterion and could have been the backup in Seattle or a few other places. It is likely that his political stances - not just his opinions (which are shared by many in the NFL, including management), but his insulting approach and complete assurance he was 100% right - did indeed influence some teams to not take the risk. He may have been ill-treated at the margins. But he's a bad hill to pick to die on for cancelling. He wasn't that good.
If he were a winner, some nfl exec would sell his mother's soul to sign Kaep. Yes, his insipid protesting turned off many fans, but if Kaep could win games all would be forgiven. Once Harbaugh left San Fran kaep stunk on ice.
Z: The drug's developers winning the Nobel Prize has nothing to do with showing its effectiveness against COVID-19.
Of course not as there was no Wuhan flu then. Sheesh.
As for ivermectin’s (in conjunction with other drugs) effectiveness in treating Wuhan flu, I’d prefer to listen to doctors who have successful experience using it and helping patients than Fauci, the CDC, the FDA (who have none), or especially Moderna that has a financial interest in keeping people ignorant of its benefits because it is developing a new Wuhan flu medication that will benefit them now that ivermectin is off patent. If you should get the flu, you and your doctor should be free to use you trust. So should I.
mudbug: Of course not as there was no Wuhan flu then.
So it's irrelevant to its effectiveness against COVID-19, even though it is in the title of the cited paper and repeated by Widburg. It's an argument by supposed authority.
mudbug: As for ivermectin’s (in conjunction with other drugs) effectiveness in treating Wuhan flu, I’d prefer to listen to doctors who have successful experience using it and helping patients ...
Anecdotes can lead to investigations, but individual experience may be due to chance or a misreading of the data. What is needed are controlled drug trials, which are ongoing. See López-Medina et al., Effect of Ivermectin on Time to Resolution of Symptoms Among Adults With Mild COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial, JAMA Network 2021: "the duration of symptoms was not significantly different for patients who received a 5-day course of ivermectin compared with placebo"
I’m not sure we should simply wave off thousands of examples of positive outcomes, shared by credible people, because they are anecdotal. Can they all be wrong in the same direction for years and years?
Why not use a possibly effective treatment that has a long, proven history of safe and efficacious use in human-sized form and doses? Who cares if it isn’t as effective as claimed or not at all - it’s cheap and safe. Is this not an urgent effort to whip this thing?
Or can we only save lives using the elegant solutions?
Louis Miller: I’m not sure we should simply wave off thousands of examples of positive outcomes, shared by credible people, because they are anecdotal.
Because most people get better from COVID-19 regardless of therapeutic intervention. Nor are we waving them off, but saying the efficacy cannot be determined from anecdotes alone. So far, the trials have not been promising.
Louis Miller: Who cares if it isn’t as effective as claimed or not at all
No drugs are completely safe, and many have interactions with other drugs the patient may be taking. Without a benefit, there is no reason to risk large numbers of patients outside of clinical trials.
Seems like the entire Democratic Party has become a party of power hungry, shameless idiots. "Has become"??? Has BEEN for quite some time...
NY Times Blames Global Warming For Hurricane Ida… Well, it won't blame itself!
As more and more information comes out on Covid and early treatment with Ivermectin I rather suspect that the CDC, NIH, FDA, and Fauci will be looking a lot like the democrats, FBI, DOJ, and 17 intelligence agencies after the collapse of the Russia hoax.
This is getting tedious, as usual. The fact that it is used as a horse wormer is also irrelevant to it's efficacy with the Wuhan flu also, but even people at the FDA are making that case. The fact that it was the subject of a Nobel Prize for human use is a rebuttal to those remarks from the FDA as well as multiple "news" sources.
Call them anecdotes but the people in the states of India and Mexico where ivermectin was used had a much lower death and hospitalization rate. Likewise with countries in Africa where it was used. There was a similar experience with hydroxychloroquine use in Africa to combat malaria - the death and infection rate was much lower in those countries.
But all of that is beside my point which is that my doctor and I should be able to follow the course of treatment (especially with a drug as safe as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine) we trust and not have to follow the edict of a bureaucrat.
mudbug: The fact that it is used as a horse wormer is also irrelevant to it's efficacy with the Wuhan flu also, but even people at the FDA are making that case.
That's because people are using medicines manufactured for use in horses to self-medicate.
Adverse effects associated with ivermectin misuse and overdose are increasing, as shown by a rise in calls to poison control centers reporting overdoses and more people experiencing adverse effects.
mudbug: Call them anecdotes but the people in the states of India and Mexico where ivermectin was used had a much lower death and hospitalization rate.
Citation please. Meanwhile, Mexico is experiencing another surge in cases and deaths.
Why? You don't provide citations.
You repeatedly make unfounded claims. (The big difference is that yours are erroneous.)
DrTorch: Why? You don't provide citations.
On this very thread, we cited a controlled trial for ivermectin, López-Medina et al., we noted the population fatality figures for different countries ^, and we cited the CDC concerning calls to poison control centers in the same comment to which you referred.
I've tried everything and I can't post the six links I collected so I'm going to try just this one which is not necessarily the most impactful:
I'll try this again...
Once more with feeling...
mudbug: Role of ivermectin in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers in India: A matched case-control study
Small sample size. The authors note, "Due to its observational nature, our study’s findings need further confirmation using longitudinal studies or interventional studies to strengthen the evidence before its large-scale use among HCWs and the implementation of public health programs." Notably, they also ruled out HCQ as an effective countermeasure.
mudbug: Shocking Conclusions from Africa Study Expose Why Big Pharma’s Puppets are Suppressing Ivermectin Data
There are confounding factors that call the claim into question, particularly, the lack of medical treatment and reporting in much of Sub-Saharan Africa.
mudbug: Effectiveness of a multidrug therapy consisting of Ivermectin, Azithromycin, Montelukast, and Acetylsalicylic acid to prevent hospitalization and death among ambulatory COVID-19 cases in Tlaxcala, Mexico
Again, a limited sample size, so the authors point out, "future research efforts are required to design and conduct RCTs to further assess the effectiveness of TNR4 in the context of different treatment schemes and healthcare settings."
If you're not too busy re-designing the curriculum for MIT and perfecting nuclear fusion power generation, pick these apart, you dilettante. 889 studies of early treatment with many drugs. Lots of studies with the one in question. Helpful hint--click on the little part of the page on the left that looks like this symbol: Ivermectin
Some of the studies undermine the claim that Ivermectin is effective against COVID-19. The statistical analysis is flawed. The letter concerning Roman et al. was particularly interesting.
And some don't undermine it.
And you most certainly did not read all of them.
To use your formulation, notably you don't explain the flaws in the statistical analysis.
Surprised you had time to do what you did, given your groundbreaking and important work on the Unified Theory.
SK: And some don't undermine it.
True. You have to then consider the quality of the studies. Most of them are lacking in one way or another. That's why even the best studies recommend larger controlled tests.
SK: And you most certainly did not read all of them.
We don't do Gish Gallops.
SK: notably you don't explain the flaws in the statistical analysis.
They multiplied a bunch of uneven studies together, some of which were reviews of other studies on the list, to get a one in trillion result. Even you should see that is not a credible result.
"True. You have to then consider the quality of the studies. Most of them are lacking in one way or another. That's why even the best studies recommend larger controlled tests."
Again, you fail to say what's wrong with the studies, or what "larger" is. Sloppy work, that. There are several dozen studies. Get to work.
"Gish Gallop"? I don't know nor do I care what that is. Once again you're dodging and attempting to change the terms of the debate. But I gotta say, it's really precious, these foppish little things you come up with.
"They multiplied a bunch of uneven studies together, some of which were reviews of other studies on the list, to get a one in trillion result. Even you should see that is not a credible result."
What I see is really, comically bad math, and someone yet again trying to justify a position based on biases and not empirical, or even fair-minded analysis. What I see is someone who would rather stake out a position than to really look at the data. What I see is someone who would rather be "right" than to support work that might prove beneficial, affordable, and life saving.
Stephen Kudro: What I see is really, comically bad math, and someone yet again trying to justify a position based on biases and not empirical, or even fair-minded analysis.
Yeah. That pretty well nails it concerning the c19early link.
"Yeah. That pretty well nails it concerning the c19early link."
Show your work. Prove it out. Do the math for us.
And please explain why the dozens of researchers and academics who participated in the "113 studies, 73 peer reviewed, 63 with results comparing treatment and control groups", whose names are appended to said studies, would smash their credibility in such a public way. I'm genuinely curious. 'Cause it don't seem real bright.
SK: Show your work.
We already did. The calculation includes faulty data, double-counts data, and the claim of 1 in a trillion is far out of reason for any clinical study.
SK: And please explain why the dozens of researchers and academics who participated in the "113 studies, 73 peer reviewed, 63 with results comparing treatment and control groups", whose names are appended to said studies, would smash their credibility in such a public way.
Most did not. However, that doesn't add up to the conclusion the website is pushing.
"Most did not. However, that doesn't add up to the conclusion the website is pushing."
That is a nonsensical statement.
And as in all studies of this type, the people who did them took credit, at least listing the principals and the institution.
You wanted links, you got them, and now all you've done is say is that the studies--dozens of them--are bad, without saying specifically why.
Please do so, and again, show your work.
This is why people around here don't take you seriously. And why you're here instead of at one of these places actually doing the work.
SK: And as in all studies of this type, the people who did them took credit, at least listing the principals and the institution.
We rejected the conclusion of the website, not the entire Gish Gallop. Some of the studies show positive results, some show negative results. Most of them have small sample sizes. Many of them recommend larger controlled trials before widespread usage, trials which are on-going. So, what is your point exactly? That we should look to the recommendations for larger controlled trials?
My point is that your reflexive reaction to information contradicting your thesis was to dismiss it--based on your biases--without actually doing the work to prove why you find it flawed.
Sample size? Even if you don't like the size of the samples, notably(!), you don't give any numbers or specific reference to individual studies. The aggregate sample size and the number of studies has value.
And few studies DON"T recommend more work be done. It's all but a pro forma part of publishing and has no bearing on the quality of the study.
Those are simply distractions and not a refutation of the quality of the work.
Obviously larger trials should be conducted, but you seem unwilling to say that.
SK: My point is that your reflexive reaction to information contradicting your thesis was to dismiss it
We dismissed it because the conclusion was preposterous, that a set of clinical trials resulted in a 1 in a trillion rejection of the null hypothesis. Closer examination shows they included questionable studies along with more rigorous studies to derive their probability. From research peers,
These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. Prospective registration of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis protocols is a key feature for providing transparency in the review process and ensuring protection against reporting biases, by revealing differences between the methods or outcomes reported in the published review and those planned in the registered protocol.
SK: And few studies DON"T recommend more work be done. It's all but a pro forma part of publishing and has no bearing on the quality of the study.
That is incorrect. For instance, Pfizer conducted controlled trials for the COVID vaccine with animals and with over 30,000 human participants, and the results were specific enough to reach a strong conclusion about efficacy.
SK: Obviously larger trials should be conducted, but you seem unwilling to say that.
Z: What is needed are controlled drug trials, which are ongoing.
Z: That's why even the best studies recommend larger controlled tests.
(You wouldn't need larger trials if you have already rejected by the null hypothesis by one in a trillion.)
Face Reconstruction of Ramses II, Based on the Pharoah’s Mummy
What I find interesting is that he is white.
I find it hard to believe that with the advent of 3 + vaccines that hospitals still send 80 yo home with no therapeutics to fight covid with. Nope, just fluids and tough it out. When they can't then its the ICU. It makes you wonder. By the way they were vaccinated.
Got some friends - he's 74, she was 75. Both vaccinated. Both came down with Covid (and we'd seen them about two, three days before they became symptomatic, so we were exposed to this crap also) - they went to the ER. She was worse off, so she was admitted - he was given monoclonal antibody treatment and sent home with instructions to force fluids and all that.
She got progressively worse - lungs collapsed, and they were barely able to keep her O2 levels up. Half-delirious a lot of the time, she pulled out her IVs, and also pulled out her nasogastric feeding tube. In the end, it's almost a blessing that she passed away. Even if she HAD survived, there'd have been weeks or months of therapy to get back to a point where she'd have been wheel-chair bound, much less walk on her own.
This shit sucks. I'm not going to say that Covid doesn't exist, or that it's the flu, or whatever. But I'm not willing to live as the Covid Karens demand - never seeing anyone, never going out and adhering religiously to a continually changing set of restrictions.
It's been a year and a half. Enough's enough.
So you weren't able to see anyone from March 2020 to March 2021? You never went out at all during that time? And the restrictions changed how continually, exactly, over that time? Every week?
Do you see why I despair of even having this discussion at MF, when even decent reasonable people have to resort to exaggeration and hyperbole to make their point?
Working in acute psych, patients would sometimes put forth the argument "I've been here a week. I deserve to leave now. You can't keep me forever." Or similarly, on the long-term units "I've been here three months. I deserve privileges to go to the cafe." It was one of my rules I taught younger staffers. [i]If you are trying to relate clinical decisions to how long you've been here, it shows you still don't get it." You don't get to say "I'm sick of having only one leg. It's been a year and a half. I'm just done with this." Clinical decisions regarding safety are made entirely on the basis of safety. Anything else is irresponsible.
You were right to mention that, snopercod, and I got distracted by arguing. Thank you. JLawson, I am also sorry for your friends.
"What happens when you get canceled, and why"
In addition to the historical precedents they mention for this kind of cancelling behavior, you can add "Star Chamber".
Category: DID ANYONE NOTICE? picky picky…
The heading for this section is “Monday morning links”.
I enjoyed my extra day off yesterday. I have a weekly engagement with my bluegrass friends at Rule105 on Tuesday evenings and that is tonight. Otherwise wouldn’t have noticed.
Question: we are past Labor Day so are we going back to regular morning links again B Dog?