Pandemic threat? Anyone else concerned?

Let's not forget that Russia has started deploying its vaccine on its own people, and yet the rest of world is casting serious doubt over the efficacy of Russia's vaccine. :( I understand that it is a serious ethical issue when it comes to vaccine approval, but can almost guarantee that if the whole world got together as one, there wouldn't be so much bureaucratic bullshit and cases of COVID-19

I can tell that many science publication journals are biased too driven by Big Pharma, NSF, the UN, and other so-called governing bodies :facepalm:


"In 2017, Gamelaya received approval in Russia for a vaccine that also used the adenovirus 5 vector to deliver the surface protein gene from the virus that causes Ebola. Researchers there used a similar strategy for a vaccine for Middle East respiratory syndrome, a disease caused by a coronavirus like the one responsible for COVID-19. It is still under development and has entered early stage clinical trials."

Much like the lies about Trump and the Russians, much like the lies about the virus coming from bat soup, I believe we are indeed again being lied to about
hydroxychloroquine.

This is about Big Pharma and those in the medical community who stand to profit. Its not about your health.

Doctors Pen Open Letter To Fauci Regarding The Use Of Hydroxychloroquine for Treating COVID-19
 
guillotine-smiley-emoticon.gif
 
  • Love
Reactions: Oceanslider
Much like the lies about Trump and the Russians, much like the lies about the virus coming from bat soup, I believe we are indeed again being lied to about
hydroxychloroquine.

This is about Big Pharma and those in the medical community who stand to profit. Its not about your health.

Doctors Pen Open Letter To Fauci Regarding The Use Of Hydroxychloroquine for Treating COVID-19
Gosh, not this again. Make it stop!

I wasn't going to bother writing a response but I found this on another forum. I agree with what is said here but take no credit for writing it:

---------
The open letter is full of it.

After some assorted saber ratling it makes a claim about the use of HCQ without citing any facts or publications. So there is no way to know what they are talking about and no way to check it.

Then they refer to the load of bollocks that is Dr. Harvy Risch. In order to believe that you have to ignore all of the data from randomized controlled trials. (here, here, and here just as an example of what is out there now.)

Then they engage in an extended exercise of Just Asking Questions. There appear to be many pages after that but I lost interest. So it appears that the only concrete bit of information cited in support of HCQ is Dr. Risch. No RCTs. They have nothing but wishful thinking.

If HCQ were half as effective as they think then it would be easy to get data showing it. With such a large effect size the number of participants in the RCT would be tiny.

It would be fabulous if there was a readily available and cheap drug to effectively treat COVID-19 but it just doesn't exist. Even the drugs that have been shown to help don't have the large effect size that the HCQ promoters dream of. I have no idea why HCQ is getting so much love while the RCTs continue to shoot it down.
-------------

But what about the miraculously low incidence of COVID-19 in places where HQ is widely prescribed for prophylaxis and early treatment? Well, the best example is Brazil.

Second only to the US in numbers of cases and deaths.

1597683331285.png

1597683369608.png
Also see:


If it was a miracle drug you wouldn't be seeing this. The fact of the matter is that any benefit from the drug is tiny, and the medical community has mostly moved on to drug cocktails that work reproducibly, even though there is no silver bullet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ctgoldwing
I just heard that the current death count in Uganda is 13. This is a country where most of the population is on Hcq due to the risk of Malaria. 13 people dead from Covid.

HQ isn't that commonly used for malaria anymore. There are newer, better drugs with improved efficacy / safety profiles, where reisistance by malaria to the new drugs hasn't been a problem.
Here's an article from 20 years ago about the switch away from HQ, starting in specific spots but if you google it, you'll find very few folks use HQ for malaria now:

HQ remains an important anti-inflammatory drug, and is critical for treating LUPUS and other inflammation/immune system disorders.

Uganda stopped using HQ for COVID-19 a while back because it wasn't shown to be effective.


Have fun guys. Busy afternoon for me at work.
 
Here's a very interesting article on Covid-19 testing. This is a great read IMO...

 
  • Like
Reactions: Frankenscript
Wuuuuuhaaaaaaaaa! Took 8 years for this virus to mature then unleash its fury
WUUUUUUUHHAAAAAAAA!
 
Here's a very interesting article on Covid-19 testing. This is a great read IMO...

This sounds to me like the same test referred to in post #5063. Here's a repeat of my response in the spirit that everything about covid is political and science be damned:
  • The technology exists for a very inexpensive covid test that can be administered at home and gives fast results.
  • It's very insensitive compared to the approved tests, but certainly better than no test at all.
  • The low cost would allow a massive testing base, and daily testing would be feasible.
  • Even with the low sensitivity, somebody who is a candidate to spread the virus would likely get a positive report.
  • In the currently regulatory environment, there's no incentive for anybody to manufacture these tests.

Assuming the technical info is correct, I think there are two reasons this test will not be allowed:
1. Governments would lose a capability to track and control people.
2. Nothing in it for big pharma profits.
 
This sounds to me like the same test referred to in post #5063. Here's a repeat of my response in the spirit that everything about covid is political and science be damned:
  • The technology exists for a very inexpensive covid test that can be administered at home and gives fast results.
  • It's very insensitive compared to the approved tests, but certainly better than no test at all.
  • The low cost would allow a massive testing base, and daily testing would be feasible.
  • Even with the low sensitivity, somebody who is a candidate to spread the virus would likely get a positive report.
  • In the currently regulatory environment, there's no incentive for anybody to manufacture these tests.

Assuming the technical info is correct, I think there are two reasons this test will not be allowed:
1. Governments would lose a capability to track and control people.
2. Nothing in it for big pharma profits.

I disagree with a few assertions. There is a great need for rapid tests. Everything from "test schoolchildren at daily/weekly/whatever frequency" to "NBA bubble: how to ensure players don't infect each other" and so on. Where there's an application, there's a profit motive.

Now, testing companies (a few of which are also pharma companies, like Roche, sure, but many are not, for example Quest) are used to getting I think $100 per COVID-19 swab test. This costs a fair amount to collect sample, ship to lab, test, report.... something that's self-contained like a pregnancy test and doesn't require a lab can be manufactured more cheaply and since there's less overhead per test (meaning, no lab...) they can sell them for considerably less and still make a profit.

There are different versions of these paper tests, some of which still need a lab (but, with much cheaper lab processing), and some which are intended for handheld. I think one of them got approved a week ago but it wasn't the lab-free kind.

An issue with approval is the view on sensitivity and approving tests that are a lot less sensitive than existing approved tests. We need easy tests not super sensitive ones, so we shall see how this goes.

Meanwhile here's a good Forbes article:


Tracking and controlling people isn't part of it at all; the gov't will get that when they vaccinate us and implant us with chips. :rofl:
 
  • Like
Reactions: mat200
Well our worries are over - Trump has a new ass kisser to spew the party line on the virus:

Dr. Scott Atlas warns against coronavirus overreaction and hysteria, pushes for the reopening of schools and sports leagues, and downplays the need for broader testing to root out the virus.
Unlike bigger-name, more circumspect public health officials, who’ve watched their luster dim at the White House, Atlas has become a star adviser in President Donald Trump’s inner circle at a crucial moment during the pandemic.
With the virus showing no sign of letting up — the U.S. has recorded roughly 5.4 million Covid-19 cases and 170,000 deaths — and with less than three months to go in an uphill reelection battle, the president is betting that a telegenic physician with a positive outlook, but no expertise in infectious diseases or epidemiology, can change his fortunes.

Atlas, upbeat and relentlessly on message that Americans should resume life as much as they can, is the living embodiment of the president’s Covid-is-not-that-big-of-a-deal approach. Where school superintendents and football conference officials see a risk of the virus’ spread this fall, Atlas cautions against too-strict measures. During Fox News appearances, he has downplayed the need for students to wear face coverings or practice social distancing if schools do reopen.
“It is proven children have no significant risk,” he said during a July 15 TV appearance. It’s a line that Trump has parroted but that hasn’t been borne out in districts where in-person learning has resumed: Schools in Georgia, North Carolina and Indiana have had to shut down shortly after starting the year because of positive cases.
In private meetings at the White House, Atlas has irritated other aides by arguing against expanded Covid-19 testing. He opposed a proposal championed by Dr. Deborah Birx, the response coordinator for the White House coronavirus task force, to scale up home testing through methods such as saliva tests. And recently, in a task force meeting, he told Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, that science does not definitively support government mandates on wearing masks. (The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that Americans wear masks when they interact with those outside the home and in instances when social distancing is not possible.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frankenscript
Recall - the timely warning..

Coronavirus Is Worse Than You've Been Told: Scientist Explains
Premiered Jan 24, 2020


WHO declined to classify this as a public health emergency.

Chris Martenson - discusses What it takes to be considered a Pandemic...
 
And now, for something COMPLETELY different:



Monty Python.. good stuff... unfortunately, not a fair representation - the Democrats in "leadership" positions failed royally also.. major failures by the part of all in leadership and main stream media..

ah... the first victim should have been NYC which did not believe the little bunny could do all that...

Did a quick check.. and there's been so much info passing along, that I would need more time to bring up the "Don't wear masks by New York health officials", "Put COVID-19 into nursing homes", .. etc...
 
T-cells doing a good job remember how to clobber SARS2... means vaccines should work well ( once the safety of the vaccines have been proven )

Encouraging news - herd immunity should be possible

A Torrent of Good News
Aug 18, 2020