Pandemic threat? Anyone else concerned?

bigredfish said:
Assume for a moment it was an accidental release from bio weapon research. Why did it have next to no affect, or at least relatively little affect, on 2/3 of the worlds population?
Click to expand...
I don't think it was a bio weapon. I think they were actually doing true health research. But sloppy protocols allowed 'it' to escape the lab. They were using mice that had lungs altered to be more like humans. I could see a mouse or two getting out of the facility, or even the disposing of dead subjects being done incorrectly, spreading to other species, like the first report of the guy eating an infected bat, starting it off.

The other possibility could be that some deranged psycho released it on purpose. Ever see the movie 12 Monkeys?
 
  • Like
Reactions: vandyman
From the get-go, it seems as though this was a manufactured and weaponized virus. I realize that my thoughts seem like conspiracy theories. Personally, I feel as though it was released with the intentions of disrupting the economy (especially since Trump was hammering them), as well as a population control, particularly euthanizing the older population. Just my humble opinion though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kozmo2k, sebastiantombs and Parley
srvfan said:
as well as a population control, particularly euthanizing the older population
Click to expand...
Well China does have a population problem. So it would not be surprising that this was the intent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kozmo2k, sebastiantombs and Parley
  • Like
Reactions: Parley and sebastiantombs
Just a random thought, but the rest of the "civilized" world is nowhere nearly as healthy as the Asian populations. The levels of co-morbidities is much higher for us, collectively, than for the Asian population with obesity and diabetes in the lead. Which just adds more speculation and conspiracy theories.
 
Move over, the nut job train is getting crowded :rofl:
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigredfish
Hi guys,

On the topic of "why has the flu gone away and yet we still have COVID-19?"

One thing that is poorly understood because the media don't know how to talk about it is that the drop in flu is an actual drop in prevalence, not just reported cases. So, if 90% of people with flu symptoms are afraid to go out to the doctor so stick it out at home, this doesn't necessarily result in a drop in flu prevalence numbers. The numbers reported are actually based on the percentage of people reporting flu symptoms, AND getting tested positive for flu. Think of it as a measure of the flu test positivity. It's the proportion positive that matters the most, not just the number of positives. Flu modeling is actually a pretty complex subject; the CDC has lots of details.

The short story about why flu has dropped so significantly is that the "masking/distancing/kids not in school/parents working remotely" has dropped the ability of flu to spread so much that it has died way back. Influenza has a much lower R value than COVID-19, so the distancing brought it below the replication threshold. COVID, which has several times the R value of flu, was still above an effective R value of 1 for much of the winter, specifically during the holidays when people mixed a lot more. Most docs I know say flu spreads SO MUCH at schools and also in offices and other close work environments ; in the US people frequently don't stay home from work when they have "just a touch of the flu" and we spread it around. These days, if someone coughs in a public place people make a beeline away from them.

Here are some references on the subject of the drop in flu. In particular it's interesting to speculate what next flu season is going to be, because with so little flu this year, choosing the strains for next fall's flu vaccine is going to be a statistical crapshoot.

www.hsph.harvard.edu

A sharp drop in flu cases during COVID-19 pandemic

Precautions taken to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, including wearing masks and distancing, are likely the major reason for a steep decline of flu cases in the U.S., according to experts. The Centers…
www.hsph.harvard.edu www.hsph.harvard.edu

www.wcnc.com

'We're seeing almost no flu' | Why it's such a slow flu season in the Carolinas

All fall long, there was talk of a so-called “twin-demic.” COVID-19 and the flu were supposed to be a one-two punch, potentially crippling our hospital systems.
www.wcnc.com www.wcnc.com

www.nature.com

How COVID-19 is changing the cold and flu season

Measures meant to tame the coronavirus pandemic are quashing influenza and most other respiratory diseases, which could have wide-ranging implications.
www.nature.com www.nature.com

PS: Being effectively a single dad while waiting for my wife to recover from surgery sucks. But she is getting better and I'm grateful! :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oceanslider, samplenhold and mat200
Nice to hear your wife is recovering , Franken.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oceanslider, mat200 and Frankenscript
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: sebastiantombs and Parley
Frankenscript said:
Hi guys,

On the topic of "why has the flu gone away and yet we still have COVID-19?"
..


PS: Being effectively a single dad while waiting for my wife to recover from surgery sucks. But she is getting better and I'm grateful! :)
Click to expand...

Hi Frankenscript,

Great to read your wife is recovering.

btw - if anyone in your family tests positive for covid, do check the latest info on ivermectin ( flccc team has great info on it ) and vitamin-D - both significantly helps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oceanslider, sebastiantombs and Frankenscript
www.aier.org

CDC vs. Common Sense

"Our governmental agencies are bestowed with certain powers to safeguard the lives of individuals and not to harass and subjugate them to the whims of a few narrow field 'experts' who have no idea about the well-being of the society as a whole. We are allowing government agencies and inept...
www.aier.org www.aier.org
 
  • Like
Reactions: samplenhold, Ssayer, sebastiantombs and 1 other person
  • Angry
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: samplenhold, Ssayer, sebastiantombs and 1 other person
  • Sad
  • Angry
Reactions: samplenhold, Ssayer, sebastiantombs and 1 other person
A couple months ago we discussed the "excess deaths" and burden of COVID-19, with an action item to revisit it in March after enough time had passed for the data sets to include essentially all 2020 deaths. Here's a good visualization of the data:

Tableau Public

public.tableau.com public.tableau.com

1615846917624.png
Whether or not you agree with the cutoffs for what constitutes an excess death or not, the toll of the virus is pretty sobering. Data should be pretty solid through the end of the year before becoming incomplete in more recent weeks.

If prayers are your thing, say one for the folks in blue and all those impacted by their loss.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tigerwillow1 and mat200
I'd like to see a bunch of what-if hindsight charts that are impossible to make:

1. What if there were no lockdowns?
2. What if there was no mask wearing?
3. How many of the excess deaths are from the disease vs. the cure? (i.e. excess suicides, oxygen deprivation, etc.)
4. How many of the deaths happened because of cases forced into nursing homes?
5. What would the chart be had we followed the Sweden model?

No second chance to try it a different way unfortunately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jessie.slimer, Ssayer, sebastiantombs and 3 others
Censorship Kills: The Shunning of a COVID Therapeutic
COMMENTARY
By Pierre Kory

Doctors fighting COVID-19 should be supported by their profession and their government, not suppressed. Yet today physicians are smothered under a wave of censorship. With coronavirus variants and vaccine hesitancy threatening a prolonged pandemic, the National Institutes of Health and the broader U.S. medical establishment should free doctors to treat this terrible disease with effective medicines.

For centuries, doctors have addressed emerging health threats by prescribing existing drugs for new uses, observing the results, and communicating to their peers and the public what seems to work. In a pandemic, precious time and lives can be lost by an insistence on excessive data and review. But in the current crisis, many in positions of authority have done just that, stubbornly refusing to allow any repurposed treatments. This departure from traditional medical practice risks catastrophe. When doctors on the front lines try to bring awareness of and use such medicines, they get silenced.

I’ve experienced such censorship firsthand. Early in the pandemic, my research led me to testify in the Senate that corticosteroids were life-saving against COVID-19, when all national and international health care agencies recommended against them. My recommendations were criticized, ignored and resisted such that I felt forced to resign my faculty position. Only later did a large study from Oxford University find they were indeed life-saving. Overnight, they became the standard of care worldwide. More recently, we identified through dozens of trials that the drug ivermectin leads to large reductions in transmission, mortality, and time to clinical recovery. After testifying to this fact in a second Senate appearance — the video of which was removed by YouTube after garnering over 8 million views — I was forced to leave another position.

I was delighted when our paper on ivermectin passed a rigorous peer review and was accepted by Frontiers in Pharmacology. The abstract was viewed over 102,000 times by people hungry for answers. Six weeks later, the journal suddenly rejected the paper, based on an unnamed “external expert” who stated that “our conclusions were unsupported,” contradicting the four senior, expert peer reviewers who had earlier accepted them. I can’t help but interpret this in context as censorship.

The science shows that ivermectin works. Over 40 randomized trials and observational studies from around the world attest to its efficacy against the novel coronavirus. Meta-analyses by four separate research groups, including ours, found an average reduction in mortality of between 68%-75%. And 10 of 13 randomized controlled trials found statistically significant reductions in time to viral clearance, an effect not associated with any other COVID-19 therapeutic. Furthermore, ivermectin has an unparalleled safety record and low cost, which should negate any fears or resistance to immediate adoption.

Our manuscript conclusions were further supported by the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) Panel. Following the World Health Organization Handbook of Guideline Development, it voted to strongly recommend the use of ivermectin in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19, and opined that further placebo controlled trials are unlikely to be ethical.

Even prior to the BIRD Panel recommendations, many countries have approved the use of ivermectin in COVID-19 or formally incorporated it into national treatment guidelines. Several have gone further and initiated large-scale importation and distribution efforts. In the last month alone, such European Union members as Bulgaria and Slovakia have approved its use nationwide. India, Egypt, Peru, Zimbabwe, and Bolivia are distributing it in many regions and observing rapid decreases in excess deaths. Increasing numbers of regional health authorities have advocated for or adopted it across Japan, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, and South Africa. And it is now the standard of care in Mexico City, one of the world’s largest cities.

It’s time to stop the foot-dragging. People are dying. The responsible physicians of this country, and their patients, need to be able to rely on their government institutions to quickly identify effective treatments, rather than waiting for pristine, massive Phase III trials before acting. At minimum, the NIH should immediately recommend ivermectin for treating and preventing COVID-19, and then work with professional associations, institutions, and the media to publicize its use. If it doesn’t, the organization will lose credibility as a public institution charged with acting in the national interest — and doctors will ignore its guidance in the future.

My story is not unique. Physicians across the country are fighting a pernicious campaign to denigrate all potential treatments not first championed by the authorities, and others have faced retaliation for speaking up. Sadly, too many of our institutions are using the pandemic as a pretext to centralize control over the practice of medicine, persecuting and canceling doctors who follow their clinical judgment and expertise.

Actually “following the science” means listening to practitioners and considering the entirety and diversity of clinical studies. That’s exactly what my colleagues and I have done. We won’t be cowed. We will speak up for our patients and do what’s right.

Pierre Kory, MD, is president and chief medical officer of the Front-Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance.

Related Topics: WHO, Nih, National Institutes Of Health, Ivermectin, COVID-19, Politics, Healthcare


www.realclearpolitics.com

Censorship Kills: The Shunning of a COVID Therapeutic | RealClearPolitics

Doctors fighting COVID-19 should be supported by their profession and their government, not suppressed. Yet today physicians are smothered under a wave of...
www.realclearpolitics.com www.realclearpolitics.com
 
  • Like
  • Wow
  • Angry
Reactions: Ssayer, sebastiantombs, samplenhold and 2 others
Parley said:
There is so much BS about these Covid-19 vaccines that I have just decided not to take it. I will just continue with the precautions. I am taking Vitamin D3 and Zinc.
Click to expand...

It is interesting finding studies about mRNA that were published prior to the pandemic being a thing...

Here is gem from one in 2018 - "When mRNA is injected into the body, it triggers virus-detecting immune sensors. That event causes cells to shut down protein production, thus foiling the therapy. And even if the molecule makes it into the cell—another challenge that has long vexed drug delivery experts—the mRNA might not make enough protein to actually be useful."

Translation - we in the US are guinea pigs on something that hasn't been tried and using this pandemic as a cover to try something they couldn't get approved in over 3 decades - maybe it ends up working or maybe it has unintended consequences years later like causing cancer... Since they haven't figured out the challenge, they just overdosed it and made it two shots hoping it takes...

 
  • Like
Reactions: Ssayer, Parley, sebastiantombs and 1 other person
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom