Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: CV and mad panic behaviour (Read 871675 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #6780 –
It's odd ... racing thru my town atm but I've been tested and all OK.  Luck of the draw.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #6781 –
Luck of the draw will be interesting to examine in hindsight. Obviously, the absence of comorbidities is an advantage, but in years to come there will be more clarity about who won the genetic lottery so they were pretty well immune to Covid. Early on, there was speculation that some blood types had advantages. My son has been pinged as a close contact 3 times but hasn't caught it while his friends have. Who knows why.

There were even some people during the HIV/AIDS epidemic who were immune to it.

Hope you and your little tacker bounce back quickly MBB. Any illness involving our kids is bad but it's worse when there's uncertainty about how bad it might affect them. 

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #6782 –
My son actually tested negative to the nasal swabs provided by the school but positive to some oral ones we have.

He seems much better today which is day 4.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #6783 –
Quote from: Mav – on
Luck of the draw will be interesting to examine in hindsight. Obviously, the absence of comorbidities is an advantage, but in years to come there will be more clarity about who won the genetic lottery so they were pretty well immune to Covid.

My wife got it and is only now recovering ... hence the "luck" bit.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #6784 –
Isn't it amazing how small the world really is for the peddlers of vaccine, wind farm and 5G and other conspiracies.

It turns out the same doctor who allegedly rallies against Wind Farms and 5G due to Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Syndrome is on the cause of AFL players wanting to avoid vaccinations.

Guess what, the very same doctor is allegedly in the complimentary integrated medicine game, combine stuff like naturopathy and homeopathic treatment regimes with conventional medicine for a holistic approach. In lay terms, selling aspirin wrapped in snake-oil, or perhaps that is a $0.02 Ivermectin or $3.00 HCQ pill with an accompanying bioactive shake for $35.

Something tells me the doctors primary skill might be sniffing out a lucrative cause, write a cheap letter now, get a potential cut of a big settlement later, but if not it does confirm that he or his people have some great skills, self-promoting and marketing because he finds them all!

btw., Some of you won't be surprised to read that many of the local conspiracy (COVID, vax, gun lobby) websites are re-badged versions of the very same sites that were rolled out for Trump's election campaign. Just like Trump's staff for his Florida hotels it's all outsourced, this time from Bangladesh instead of Mexico! Apparently even the photographs of the website owners are fakes generated by an AI, sites making hundred$ or thousand$ of dollars a day in hits, and all run by 3rd world IT professionals for as little as $30/day! So it comes down to money again, profit over morality!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #6785 –
Quote from: madbluboy – on
My son actually tested negative to the nasal swabs provided by the school but positive to some oral ones we have.

He seems much better today which is day 4.
Good news.

I posted a couple weeks back (i think) that omicron was reported as being more easily detected via oral swabs. With other strains it was basically the opposite.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #6786 –
Looks like the AFL might be getting close to a return to normal. The Vic Govt is allowing full crowds & fortress WA has been breached meaning teams may be free to fly into & out of WA during the season.

The dark cloud overhead is the likelihood that winter will spike Covid infections.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #6787 –
Quote from: Mav – on
Looks like the AFL might be getting close to a return to normal. The Vic Govt is allowing full crowds & fortress WA has been breached meaning teams may be free to fly into & out of WA during the season.

The dark cloud overhead is the likelihood that winter will spike Covid infections.
It will be interesting to see what "Flying Freely in and out of WA" means, given the experience of visiting AFLW teams!

Seemingly, it's taken to the old Princes Park cold showers for visitors to a whole new level. The AFLW players made it sound like the visitor facilities basically had 50 people crammed into an unlit dungeon and crapping in a communal bucket!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #6788 –
"Political affiliation should not be a factor in clinical treatment decisions."
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/02/ivermectin-fails-another-covid-trial-as-study-links-use-to-gop-politics/

Oops I did it again!


Yet another serious study shows nothing of use in Ivermectin dosing, which confirms earlier trials.

Earlier trials such as the large Malaysian trial.
Quote
Overall, the authors of the Malaysian trial conclude that, in their "randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, ivermectin treatment during early illness did not prevent progression to severe disease. The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19."

Some of you with a darker sense of humour may quip about "Trump killing off his support!"
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #6789 –
Uk pulling all covid restrictions a month earlier than anticipated.

Green light for normality resumed. 
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #6790 –
I was interested to see how Flyboy's favourite site c19early.com handled the bad news of these randomised trials. I looked at how it dealt with the earlier Malaysian randomised trial conducted by Lim et al. abstracted HERE
Quote
Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who progressed to severe disease, defined as the hypoxic stage requiring supplemental oxygen to maintain pulse oximetry oxygen saturation of 95% or higher. Secondary outcomes of the trial included the rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, 28-day in-hospital mortality, and adverse events.

Results: Among 490 patients included in the primary analysis (mean [SD] age, 62.5 [8.7] years; 267 women [54.5%]), 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% CI, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). For all prespecified secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups. Mechanical ventilation occurred in 4 (1.7%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17), intensive care unit admission in 6 (2.4%) vs 8 (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79), and 28-day in-hospital death in 3 (1.2%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09). The most common adverse event reported was diarrhea (14 [5.8%] in the ivermectin group and 4 [1.6%] in the control group).

Conclusions and relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, ivermectin treatment during early illness did not prevent progression to severe disease. The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.

It is widely regarded as debunking ivermectin as a treatment for Covid, but the anonymous author simply decided to ignore the statistical analysis that "For all prespecified secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups" and assert that the study proved that Ivermectin reduced mortality by 69% to 75%. S/he claimed "The mortality reduction is consistent with the results from all trials to date. While not reaching the significance threshold with the specified test, Bayesian analysis shows a 97% probability that ivermectin reduces mortality". S/he concluded that this "equate(s) to ~4 million lives saved if adopted at the start of the pandemic.:  https://c19ivermectin.com/lim.html#rn0

Apparently, the anonymous author felt s/he was able to apply statistical polyfilla that allowed him/her to draw such conclusions as well as a dark inference that there was "substantial investigator bias with a preference for a null result". That's despite the study being peer reviewed.

It seems that the anonymous site is the equivalent of the Black Knight claiming "It's only a flesh wound" in response to mortal blows. If that's the way the site manipulates studies that are clearly contrary to its support of ivermectin, it can't be taken seriously. 

At some point, I'll look at how it has dealt with the retractions of fraudulent and improper studies & papers and whether it has noted the cautions added to metastudies based in part on them.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #6791 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
Uk pulling all covid restrictions a month earlier than anticipated.

Green light for normality resumed. 

The UK "duel fuel" increases (eff April) will wake up the masses .... up 54% or an annual bill of $4000 AUD.

 

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #6792 –
The c19early.com site includes the withdrawn Elgazzar study that allegedly considered 200 patients, but it does note that it has been withdrawn. Does that mean it's conclusions are no longer part of the mashup offered by the site regarding Ivermectin? Who can say?

However, the site also lists a meta-analysis by Bryant et al. which did include the Elgazzar study. There's no mention made in the details offered for that analysis that this is at this is now a highly controversial analysis given that the Elgazzar study's alleged 200 patients and amazingly supportive conclusions would have had a large impact on the meta-analysis. Bryant is fighting a rearguard action to defend his paper by saying Elgazzar still stands behind the validity of his study and excluding it from the meta-analysis wouldn't make much of a difference. But many call BS on that.

In any event, a site that doesn't note that controversy and exclude the results of the meta-analysis pending a final determination of the claims of Bryant and Elgazzar isn't worth the paper it's not written on.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #6793 –
Interesting to see how that site treated the Together trial published on 6/8/2021 which was conducted in Brazil and supervised by McMaster University, Canada.

The "data" from the trial which presumably is fed into the site's mashup showed an 18% improvement in mortality and a 9% improvement in extended ER observations. You'd imagine that such results would be celebrated but instead the site devotes screenfuls of takedowns to prove that the study is corrupt and untrue. It's almost as if the trial actually concluded that Ivermectin was useless.

And indeed the trial concluded that ivermectin showed “no effect whatsoever” on the trial’s outcome goals — whether patients required extended observation in the emergency room or hospitalization.

How can adverse studies be included in the site's "meta-analysis" as positive ones? Amazing ...

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #6794 –
Quote from: Mav – on
How can adverse studies be included in the site's "meta-analysis" as positive ones? Amazing ...
At this stage all meta analysis is redundant in regards to COVID, we've millions of global physical cases to use and no longer need to extrapolate obscure results from aggregating smaller studies especially smaller meta analysis studies.

In any case, there are serious questions of validity whenever meta analysis aggregates meta analysis, many say that is invalid by default.

Meta analysis is supposed to aggregate smaller physical studies, field trials, in situ, lab in vitro, etc., etc., to simulate a bigger/broader physical trail, not an aggregation of other meta analysis. In effect meta analysis of meta analysis is like a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy.

Even worse, many of the meta analysis in the aggregation refer to the same fault physical trials. It's like using footage of one single car accident to explain every car accident that ever happened.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"