subject:"Sharpiegate"


> On 7 Aug 2020, at 22:12, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 2:46:49 PM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 2:51 PM Jason Resch  > wrote:
> 
> > The scientific consensus is based on scientific studies, is it not?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > Every single study  (dozens of them) that 
> > investigated early and prophylactic use of HCQ showed a benefit, without 
> > exception.
> 
> A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for 
> Covid-19 
> 
> > So then, what is the scientific consensus on early/prophylactic use?
> 
> "CONCLUSIONS: After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, 
> hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or 
> confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days after 
> exposure. [...] Side effects were more common with hydroxychloroquine than 
> with placebo"
> 
>  John K Clark
> 
> 
> This is my understanding as well, and what I get with the ProMED messages. 
> 
> The internet and digital age has boomeranged on us. There was a promise of 
> there being a world library and a renaissance in facilitating research. 
> Instead, besides the commercial stuff, we have become a world of lies and 
> liars, where alt-realities, pseudo-facts and just plain rot and lies has come 
> dominate things. We are going from the age of enlightenment to endarkenment, 
> where things that are factually false continue to be generated and ardently 
> defended. This is how dark ages start.


This started 1500 years ago, with the abode of theology to the charlatans. The 
Renaissance has led the natural science come back to research and honesty, but 
apparently, the humans are not mature enough to let this happens in the human 
sciences, and that explains Shoah, Rwanda, covid-19, and now the democracy 
itself is under threat (the democratic system is the only progress in the human 
science, and it is vary fragile).

Bruno



> 
> LC
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e489234b-c2cb-43ad-86c8-ac0e5007c81en%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4C636AF0-2765-4F27-ADD2-4EDDBB1B8B05%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sharpiegate


> On 7 Aug 2020, at 20:33, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 2:11 PM Jason Resch  > wrote:
> 
> >> Only a fool would look to an imbecile and congenital liar such as Donald J 
> >> Trump for medacal advice. There will always be scientific contrarians 
> >> about anything but I look to the latest scientific consensus for my 
> >> medacal advice, and the more recent it is the more it says 
> >> hydroxychloroquine is worthless or even harmful in the treatment of 
> >> COVID-19. 
> 
> > If your first thought as to the efficacy of a particular medication is to 
> > point to what a particular politician said, 
>  
> Historically if you had bet that the exact opposite of what that particular 
> American politician had said was true then you would've won your bet far far 
> more often than you'd expect by random chance. However Induction is not 
> perfect so it can't give a guarantee of future success, but it's a pretty 
> damn good rule of thumb.
> 
> > then I fear you may not be using the scientific method. 
> 
> I believe part of the scientific method is believing that what the consensus 
> of the scientific community says is far more likely to be closer to the truth 
> than what a right wing fascist president with a room temperature IQ (in 
> Centigrade) says.

The “consensus” argument makes local sense in practice, by default. But it is 
not part of science, which is based on systemic doubt.
Then the consensus is that God is a person, and marijuana is a drug, I mean, 
typically, consensus in hot domain have to be interrogated even more, and 
doubly so in the art of curing people, where many different type of interest, 
pseudo-religious and lucrative, are mixed.

A government can mandate the use of mask, like it can mandate a speed limit on 
the road, but it cannot forbid a product. It can only regulate it.

Bruno





> 
>  John K Clark
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3WoQ8mBkB2tmkjbO0pCDFvZ81uuOO6C-FEo5mXAutWQw%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/EF84CEE3-CCDF-40B1-AD00-53A731350807%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sharpiegate


> On 7 Aug 2020, at 20:41, PGC  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 4:53:50 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 7 Aug 2020, at 13:09, PGC > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 12:38:28 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 7 Aug 2020, at 00:52, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 8 | DISCUSSION As hospitals around the globe have filled with patients with 
>>> COVID-19, front line providers remain without effective therapeutic tools 
>>> to directly combat the disease. The initial anecdotal reports out of China 
>>> led to the initial wide uptake of HCQ and to a lesser extent CQ for many 
>>> hospitalized patients with COVID-19 around the globe. As more data have 
>>> become available, enthusiasm for these medications has been tempered. Well 
>>> designed, large randomized controlled trials are needed to help determine 
>>> what role, if any, these medications should have in treating COVID-19 
>>> moving forwards. While HCQ has in vitro activity against a number of 
>>> viruses, it does not act like more typical nucleoside/tide antiviral drugs. 
>>> For instance, HCQ is not thought to act on the critical viral enzymes 
>>> including the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, helicase, or proteases. Despite 
>>> in vitro activity against influenza, in a large high quality randomized 
>>> controlled trial, it showed no clinical benefit, suggesting that similar 
>>> discordance between in vitro and in vivo observations is possible for 
>>> SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-273 (Table 3). 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Additionally, HCQ and especially CQ have cardiovascular and other risks, 
>>> particularly when these agents are used at high doses or combined with 
>>> certain other agents. While large scale studies have demonstrated that 
>>> long-term treatment with CQ or HCQ does not increase the incidence of 
>>> infection, caution should be exercised in extrapolating safety from the 
>>> studies of chronic administration to largely healthy individuals to 
>>> estimate the risk associated with short-course treatment in acutely  and 
>>> severely ill patients. Furthermore, the immunologic actions that make HCQ 
>>> an important drug for the treatment of auto-immune diseases might have 
>>> unintended consequences when it is used for patients with COVID-19. The 
>>> effects of this immune modulation on patients with COVID-19 are unknown at 
>>> this time, including a potential negative impact on antiviral innate and 
>>> adaptive immune responses which need to be considered and studied. For all 
>>> these reasons, and in the context of accumulating preclinical and clinical 
>>> data, we recommend that HCQ only be used for COVID-19 in the context of a 
>>> carefully constructed randomized clinical trial. If this agent is used 
>>> outside of a clinical trial, the risks and benefits should be rigorously 
>>> weighed on a case-by-case basis and reviewed in light of both the immune 
>>> dysfunction induced by the virus and known antiviral and immune modulatory 
>>> actions of HCQ.
>>> 
>>> https://faseb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1096/fj.202000919 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Just to be sure, I have no problem with this. My point is just that today, 
>> there are studies indicating that HCQ might be slightly better than 
>> Remdesevir, and that the Media are wrong when mocking Trump on HCQ in some 
>> systematic way.
>> 
>> You're out of your field here. People out on the front lines shouldn't be 
>> subjecting high numbers of suffering folks to medical treatment based on 
>> some studies indicating "might be slightly better than…".
> 
> If serious studies shows that a medication is better than another, why not, 
> in case you do have confidence in those studies of course. As you say, I am 
> not a physician, and I have no real clue which medication I would use. My 
> point was just that it is hard to trust the FDA on this, and the media is not 
> exceptionally valid on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> As Brent quoted, it should read "Well designed, large randomized controlled 
>> trials are needed". You make it a point to advertise your humility and 
>> awareness of your ignorance as a scientist. Thankfully, Doctors around the 
>> world are not mechanists according to Bruno or Raoults and act with more 
>> humility and cooler heads relative to the studies you refer to, and 
>> interpret them as premature, until more solid evidence may change the 
>> picture.
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>  
>> Most people in the virology community defending HCQ are not favorable to the 
>> preventive use of HCQ, and propose precise protocol to be used, and 
>> actually, claims that it asks for a higher doze than its usual use, 
>> justifying a medical prescription. Only doctors could use it. And yes, that 
>> can have advert effect, but according to Raoult, they are slightly less 
>> severe than the one accompanying Remdesevir.
>> 
>> He doesn't

Re: Sharpiegate

> On 7 Aug 2020, at 17:40, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 6:38 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> > the Media are wrong when mocking Trump on HCQ in some systematic way. 
> 
> No they are not. Only a fool would look to an imbecile and congenital liar 
> such as Donald J Trump for medacal advice.

I agree, and Trump’s way to use it to dismiss the danger of the covid-19 makes 
it very wise to not listen to him on anything. But the media lose credits by 
inferring that HCQ is a fraud, and they should be more serious on this, and do 
some minimal research.

> There will always be scientific contrarians about anything but I look to the 
> latest scientific consensus for my medacal advice, and the more recent it is 
> the more it says hydroxychloroquine is worthless or even harmful in the 
> treatment of COVID-19. 

Yes, but that comes from people who lie on Cannabis since about a century. And 
if you look at the independent (of the FDA) studies, you get that HCQ is about 
as helpful than the Remdesevir.

I have no opinion at all on this.  Trump is a liar, but unfortunately, in the 
Health domain, there is a tradition of lies. It is even normal, once you 
tolerate making money on health/disease: a cured patient is a client lost. One 
of my student has been hired by a pharmaceutical company to develop AI tools to 
hide better the secondary effects in the notice of the medication, in a way 
such that it looks legal, and this for different countries. 

Bandits and dictators love AI …

Bruno

> 
>  John K Clark
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1vonDWBgfcZi4Je_bn19fA88tLzt1_rc66oRr3s_SkZg%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/538E3335-CAB7-4F9A-8BCC-AAB9C1BDE08C%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-08-09 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

Here is another drug that allegedly opens the cell walls up to zinc and it's 
the zinc that prevents the virus from propagating. I have no idea if this is 
accurate, only that repeated studies that do not provide zinc in their testing 
are not useful. If they leave out the zinc, I am wondering, are they the cell 
biologists doing a medical study or doing propaganda? Color me, paranoid. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6A6RFDprIs=youtu.be
Does it prove it? No, I am just wanting something that acts as an antigen to 
the Wuhan, and yes, a vaccine would be rather nice too! 

-Original Message-
From: smitra 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Aug 9, 2020 6:23 pm
Subject: Re: Sharpiegate

On 09-08-2020 21:00, John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 1:24 PM Jason Resch 
> wrote:
> 
>> _> You, as well as most of the media write ups are confusing "did
>> not prove a benefit" with "proved no benefit". _
> 
> I'm not confused at all. No study has proven that leeches have no
> benefit in the treatment of COVID-19, but there is also no
> statistically relevant evidence that it does, so scientists could more
> productively spend their time studying things other than leeches. I
> mean it's not as if there are no other promising leads. And this sort
> of thing is the rule not the exception, from cancer to aids to
> Alzheimer's disease to you name it the medical literature is cram full
> of examples of drugs and treatments that hinted in very early small
> scale studies that they might be beneficial but were later shown to be
> useless or even harmful in larger more careful studies.
> 
> Hydroxychloroquine is not even a controversial drug as far as the
> scientific community is concerned, the opinion is almost universal
> that it's just like most new ideas in science, it didn't work out, and
> so it's time to move on to other things; The drug only becomes
> controversial when fascist presidents and nincompoop Fox pundits enter
> into the mix.
> 
>>> a statistically powerful result were all late stage studies.
> 
> Considered statistically powerful by people who don't understand
> statistics, and Humans don't have an intuitive ability to assess
> probabilities, we need to calculate them. For example: If AIDS is in
> 0.3% of the population and the false positive rate of an AIDS test is
> 1% and I take that test and test positive, is there a 99% probability
> that I really have AIDS? No, the chance would be 29.7%,
> (.003*[0.99/0.01]).
> 
>>> _John treats HCQ like ESP, with no science behind it. _
> 
> Not in the early days of 4 or 5 months ago, back then it was
> reasonable to be hopeful about it, but those who hold onto a blind
> belief in HCQ and refuse to even modify it one bit even now after much
> more information about it has come in then yes, they're just as
> fanatical as the ESP nuts. They will never EVER be satisfied with a
> negative result, they will ALWAYS want another larger study.
> 
>>> _ __in vitro studies clearly showed its anti-viral properties,_
> 
> If in vitro studies were all that mattered people would've stopped
> dying from cancer decades ago.
> 
> John K Clark
> 

Another thing to keep in mind here is that only a small fraction of the 
general public end up becoming severely ill, and that people with 
underlying health issues such as obesity, diabetes etc. dominate the 
group of people who are at risk of needing hospital care. If we assume 
fir argument's sake that HCQ does have an effect when taken in the very 
early stages, that effect would then be irrelevant to the vast majority 
of healthy people. If you are obese then it could be helpful to you, but 
simply losing weight would have a far greater effect. This is why in 
Britain they are staring a campaign for people to lose weight.

In general I'm rather skeptical for cures in the form of drugs for the 
general healthy public. If modifying a biological mechanism would have a 
benefit for the healthy population, then the question is why evolution 
did not implement that modification? Usually when taking pills does help 
for the general public, this is related to our modern lifestyles causing 
certain deficiencies, like e.g. vitamin D deficiency. And we know that 
being overweight, being vitamin D deficient, lack of exercise have 
negative effects on the immune system:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-06-fat-cell-immune-response-obesity.html

"When obesity occurs, a person's own fat cells can set off a complex 
inflammatory chain reaction that can further disrupt metabolism and 
weaken immune response—potentially placing people at higher risk of poor 
outcomes from a variety of diseases and infections, including COVID-19."

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-43308729

"Doing lots of exercise in older age can

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-08-09 Thread smitra


On 09-08-2020 21:00, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 1:24 PM Jason Resch 
wrote:


_> You, as well as most of the media write ups are confusing "did
not prove a benefit" with "proved no benefit". _


I'm not confused at all. No study has proven that leeches have no
benefit in the treatment of COVID-19, but there is also no
statistically relevant evidence that it does, so scientists could more
productively spend their time studying things other than leeches. I
mean it's not as if there are no other promising leads. And this sort
of thing is the rule not the exception, from cancer to aids to
Alzheimer's disease to you name it the medical literature is cram full
of examples of drugs and treatments that hinted in very early small
scale studies that they might be beneficial but were later shown to be
useless or even harmful in larger more careful studies.

Hydroxychloroquine is not even a controversial drug as far as the
scientific community is concerned, the opinion is almost universal
that it's just like most new ideas in science, it didn't work out, and
so it's time to move on to other things; The drug only becomes
controversial when fascist presidents and nincompoop Fox pundits enter
into the mix.


a statistically powerful result were all late stage studies.


Considered statistically powerful by people who don't understand
statistics, and Humans don't have an intuitive ability to assess
probabilities, we need to calculate them. For example: If AIDS is in
0.3% of the population and the false positive rate of an AIDS test is
1% and I take that test and test positive, is there a 99% probability
that I really have AIDS? No, the chance would be 29.7%,
(.003*[0.99/0.01]).


_John treats HCQ like ESP, with no science behind it. _


Not in the early days of 4 or 5 months ago, back then it was
reasonable to be hopeful about it, but those who hold onto a blind
belief in HCQ and refuse to even modify it one bit even now after much
more information about it has come in then yes, they're just as
fanatical as the ESP nuts. They will never EVER be satisfied with a
negative result, they will ALWAYS want another larger study.


_ __in vitro studies clearly showed its anti-viral properties,_


If in vitro studies were all that mattered people would've stopped
dying from cancer decades ago.

John K Clark



Another thing to keep in mind here is that only a small fraction of the 
general public end up becoming severely ill, and that people with 
underlying health issues such as obesity, diabetes etc. dominate the 
group of people who are at risk of needing hospital care. If we assume 
fir argument's sake that HCQ does have an effect when taken in the very 
early stages, that effect would then be irrelevant to the vast majority 
of healthy people. If you are obese then it could be helpful to you, but 
simply losing weight would have a far greater effect. This is why in 
Britain they are staring a campaign for people to lose weight.


In general I'm rather skeptical for cures in the form of drugs for the 
general healthy public. If modifying a biological mechanism would have a 
benefit for the healthy population, then the question is why evolution 
did not implement that modification? Usually when taking pills does help 
for the general public, this is related to our modern lifestyles causing 
certain deficiencies, like e.g. vitamin D deficiency. And we know that 
being overweight, being vitamin D deficient, lack of exercise have 
negative effects on the immune system:


https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-06-fat-cell-immune-response-obesity.html

"When obesity occurs, a person's own fat cells can set off a complex 
inflammatory chain reaction that can further disrupt metabolism and 
weaken immune response—potentially placing people at higher risk of poor 
outcomes from a variety of diseases and infections, including COVID-19."


https://www.bbc.com/news/health-43308729

"Doing lots of exercise in older age can prevent the immune system from 
declining and protect people against infections, scientists say.


They followed 125 long-distance cyclists, some now in their 80s, and 
found they had the immune systems of 20-year-olds.


Prof Norman Lazarus, 82, of King's College London, who took part in and 
co-authored the research, said: "If exercise was a pill, everyone would 
be taking it.


"It has wide-ranging benefits for the body, the mind, for our muscles 
and our immune system."


The research was published in the journal Aging Cell.

Prof Janet Lord, director of the Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, 
at the University of Birmingham, and co-author of the research, said: 
"The immune system declines by about 2-3% a year from our 20s, which is 
why older people are more susceptible to infections, conditions like 
rheumatoid arthritis and, potentially, cancer.


"Because the cyclists have the immune system of a 20-year-old rather 
than a 70- or 80-year-old, it means they have added protection against 
all these

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-08-09 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 1:24 PM Jason Resch  wrote:

*> You, as well as most of the media write ups are confusing "did not prove
> a benefit" with "proved no benefit". *
>

I'm not confused at all. No study has proven that leeches have no benefit
in the treatment of COVID-19, but there is also no statistically relevant
evidence that it does, so scientists could more productively spend their
time studying things other than leeches. I mean it's not as if there are no
other promising leads. And this sort of thing is the rule not the
exception, from cancer to aids to Alzheimer's disease to you name it the
medical literature is cram full of examples of drugs and treatments that
hinted in very early small scale studies that they might be beneficial but
were later shown to be useless or even harmful in larger more careful
studies.

Hydroxychloroquine is not even a controversial drug as far as the
scientific community is concerned, the opinion is almost universal that
it's just like most new ideas in science, it didn't work out, and so it's
time to move on to other things; The drug only becomes controversial when
fascist presidents and nincompoop Fox pundits enter into the mix.

> a statistically powerful result were all late stage studies.

Considered statistically powerful by people who don't understand
statistics, and Humans don't have an intuitive ability to assess
probabilities, we need to calculate them. For example: If AIDS is in 0.3%
of the population and the false positive rate of an AIDS test is 1% and I
take that test and test positive, is there a 99% probability that I really
have AIDS? No, the chance would be 29.7%, (.003*[0.99/0.01]).

> > *John treats HCQ like ESP, with no science behind it. *

Not in the early days of 4 or 5 months ago, back then it was reasonable to
be hopeful about it, but those who hold onto a blind belief in HCQ and
refuse to even modify it one bit even now after much more information about
it has come in then yes, they're just as fanatical as the ESP nuts. They
will never EVER be satisfied with a negative result, they will ALWAYS want
another larger study.

> *in vitro studies clearly showed its anti-viral properties,*

If in vitro studies were all that mattered people would've stopped dying
from cancer decades ago.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2HJWnjPR12CKGSOyLpeMhsHCd2beg5uuPcGrWOgDEwHQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-08-09 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

Well here is another claim, for another drug, which uses, also zinc, plus an 
antibiotic. Orange Man obviously, never heard of this one. The effect seems the 
same or even better than hydrochloro-  Here is the reportage... Sky News (be 
warned!). 
I hope it works as indicated because it's also very cheap! 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6A6RFDprIs=youtu.be

-Original Message-
From: Jason Resch 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Sun, Aug 9, 2020 1:41 pm
Subject: Re: Sharpiegate

Why is it that every study that looks at early administration or prophylactic 
use was either inconclusive or showed a benefit? Is it all a coincidence?  
Every set of scientists was biased, and by random chance was led to an 
incorrect conclusion?  When 32 out of 32 studies concluded there was a positive 
result so long as it is not given late, and when given late, a majority of the 
studies showed it was still beneficial, then even though the science is not 
settled definitively, I think it is leaning in a particular direction.

John treats HCQ like ESP, with no science behind it. Yet in vitro studies 
clearly showed its anti-viral properties, especially when co-administered with 
zinc. There was a reason to believe it would be effective. It concentrates in 
the lungs, and is a zinc ionophore, and zinc interferes with RNA viral 
replication. Even the NIH, in 2005 concluded "Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor 
of SARS coronavirus infection and spread" for the first SARS-Cov-1 virus: 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/
It's good to challenge and doubt, that is what science is. But we're in 
uncertain times, the science is not settled on this question one way or 
another. 
Jason

On Sun, Aug 9, 2020, 6:02 AM PGC  wrote:

On Sunday, August 9, 2020 at 1:23:17 AM UTC+2, Jason wrote:
I know that arguing with you is generally a waste of time, but since lives are 
at stake I felt it necessary to correct some of what you say below.
On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 7:04 AM John Clark  wrote:

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 4:20 PM Jason Resch  wrote:

> So infection rates in the control group were 14.3% and in the group receiving 
> HCQ were 11.8%.  That's an absolute risk reduction of (14.3-11.8)/14.3 = 
> 17.5%.

And that is a rate that is not statistically significant, that is to say it was 
most likely a random artifact produced by the small sample size. And that is 
why every scientist who knows something about statistics was not hailing this 
is a major milestone in the fight against COVID-19 but instead was telling 
people to stop wasting their time talking about hydroxychloroquine and use that 
time to look for something that might actually work. 

I think you understand the difference between significant and statistically 
significant.  When the drug was administered within 3 days after exposure, it 
reduced by half the number of people who developed symptoms. That is very 
significant, if indeed that reflects the true rate of reduction.
However, the test size and methodology for this study left a lot to be desired. 
That is why, despite showing significant results, it was unable to attain 
statistical significance. That means a large study is needed, not that we can 
conclude it does or doesn't work.

Of course there are still plenty of people screaming about the wonders of 
hydroxychloroquine, but none of them are scientists who know something about 
the subtleties of statistics; they are instead Internet pundits with 20 minutes 
of study of the science of epidemiology under their belt, fascist politicians 
desperate to win reelection, and quack doctors who babble about demon sperm and 
vaccines made from space alien DNA.

You are falling back into doing politics, not science. Look at the studies. I 
read the abstracts of all 65 of the studies that have been done. Ignore the 
politicians completely when it comes to this question. 

Yes some early small scale tests hinted that hydroxychloroquine might be useful 
but the most important of them was retracted, to the great embarrassment of the 
journal involved, because the data used in it was suspect: 

Retraction—Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for 
treatment of COVID-19: 

That study was retracted because they demonstrably made up data. When they were 
called out on it, refused to show the data they used. 

And later much larger and much better conducted trials  indicated 
hydroxychloroquine conferred no benefit in the treatment of COVID-19 and if 
anything was harmful:
Three big studies dim hopes that hydroxychloroquine can treat or prevent 
COVID-19

Let's look behind the headline at each of those three studies.
1. The Recovery Trial: https://c19study.com/recovery.htmlThis was study gave 
the drug at a very late stage, when people were on ventilators and close to 
death. If you study the disease progression, it occurs in two phases. By the 
time the person is low on oxygen the virus is already being cleared by

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-08-09 Thread Jason Resch

Why is it that every study that looks at early administration or
prophylactic use was either inconclusive or showed a benefit? Is it all a
coincidence?  Every set of scientists was biased, and by random chance was
led to an incorrect conclusion?  When 32 out of 32 studies concluded there
was a positive result so long as it is not given late, and when given late,
a majority of the studies showed it was still beneficial, then even though
the science is not settled definitively, I think it is leaning in a
particular direction.

John treats HCQ like ESP, with no science behind it. Yet in vitro studies
clearly showed its anti-viral properties, especially when co-administered
with zinc. There was a reason to believe it would be effective. It
concentrates in the lungs, and is a zinc ionophore, and zinc interferes
with RNA viral replication. Even the NIH, in 2005 concluded "Chloroquine is
a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread" for the first
SARS-Cov-1 virus: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/

It's good to challenge and doubt, that is what science is. But we're in
uncertain times, the science is not settled on this question one way or
another.

Jason


On Sun, Aug 9, 2020, 6:02 AM PGC  wrote:

>
>
> On Sunday, August 9, 2020 at 1:23:17 AM UTC+2, Jason wrote:
>>
>> I know that arguing with you is generally a waste of time, but since
>> lives are at stake I felt it necessary to correct some of what you say
>> below.
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 7:04 AM John Clark  wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 4:20 PM Jason Resch  wrote:
>>>
>>> *> So infection rates in the control group were 14.3% and in the group
 receiving HCQ were 11.8%.  That's an absolute risk reduction of
 (14.3-11.8)/14.3 = 17.5%.*
>>>
>>>
>>> And that is a rate that is not statistically significant, that is to say
>>> it was most likely a random artifact produced by the small sample size. And
>>> that is why every scientist who knows something about statistics was not
>>> hailing this is a major milestone in the fight against COVID-19 but instead
>>> was telling people to stop wasting their time talking about
>>> hydroxychloroquine and use that time to look for something that might
>>> actually work.
>>>
>>
>> I think you understand the difference between significant and
>> statistically significant.  When the drug was administered within 3 days
>> after exposure, it reduced by half the number of people who developed
>> symptoms. That is very significant, if indeed that reflects the true rate
>> of reduction.
>>
>> However, the test size and methodology for this study left a lot to be
>> desired. That is why, despite showing significant results, it was unable to
>> attain statistical significance. That means a large study is needed, not
>> that we can conclude it does or doesn't work.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Of course there are still plenty of people screaming about the wonders
>>> of hydroxychloroquine, but none of them are scientists who know something
>>> about the subtleties of statistics; they are instead Internet pundits with
>>> 20 minutes of study of the science of epidemiology under their belt,
>>> fascist politicians desperate to win reelection, and quack doctors who
>>> babble about demon sperm and vaccines made from space alien DNA.
>>>
>>
>> You are falling back into doing politics, not science. Look at the
>> studies. I read the abstracts of all 65 of the studies that have been done.
>> Ignore the politicians completely when it comes to this question.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Yes some early small scale tests hinted that hydroxychloroquine might be
>>> useful but the most important of them was retracted, to the great
>>> embarrassment of the journal involved, because the data used in it was
>>> suspect:
>>>
>>> Retraction—Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide
>>> for treatment of COVID-19:
>>> 
>>>
>>
>> That study was retracted because they demonstrably made up data. When
>> they were called out on it, refused to show the data they used.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And later much larger and much better conducted trials  indicated
>>> hydroxychloroquine conferred no benefit in the treatment of COVID-19 and if
>>> anything was harmful:
>>>
>>> Three big studies dim hopes that hydroxychloroquine can treat or prevent
>>> COVID-19
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Let's look behind the headline at each of those three studies.
>>
>> *1. The Recovery Trial: https://c19study.com/recovery.html
>> *
>> This was study gave the drug at a very late stage, when people were on
>> ventilators and close to death. If you study the disease progression, it
>> occurs in two phases. By the time the person is low on oxygen the virus is
>> already being cleared by the immune system, it is when the

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-08-09 Thread Jason Resch

You, as well as most of the media write ups are confusing "did not prove a
benefit" with "proved no benefit".  From one we can conclude something, the
other means the study wasn't big enough and the question remains open.

The studies that had enough people die to get a statistically powerful
result were all late stage studies. You need a lot fewer people who are
very sick to get statistical power than when the people are not yet sick.

So it's no surprise that the first results to come in would be negative.
But those studies tested the wrong thing. The claim was always that it
should be given as early as possible, during the viral stage of the disease.

Proving effectiveness for early administration requires studies tens to
hundreds of times larger than late stage studies because so few people die
from it.

Jason

On Sun, Aug 9, 2020, 7:13 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 7:23 PM Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>
>> *> I think you understand the difference between significant and
>> statistically significant. *
>>
>
> If something is not statistically significant then there's no evidence it
> is significant. Period. The Human mind is just not very good at assessing
> probabilities, it's easy to reach conclusions that seem intuitively
> obvious but are nevertheless dead wrong, especially if the sample size is
> small, so it's important to be mathematically rigorous in scientific
> papers.
>
> *> The test size and methodology for this study left a lot to be desired.
>> That is why, despite showing significant results, it was unable to attain
>> statistical significance.*
>>
>
> Tests sizes are always finite and the results would always be better if
> the test size was larger, but in this study for this drug the test size was
> the largest there has ever been, so its results supersedes that of previous
> studies.
>
>
>> *> That means a large study is needed, not that we can conclude it does
>> or doesn't work.*
>>
>
> Hydroxychloroquine has now become like ESP, regardless of how many tests
> that indicate there's nothing there some will say we need to study it more,
> a true believer will never EVER say "that's enough, I was wrong, let's move
> on". But the difference is ESP belief may be silly but it doesn't kill
> people, however every time you use finite resources for yet another study
> of something that has already been studied to death you are NOT studying
> other treatments that look far more promising and might actually work. And
> that could kill people and probably already has.
>
> *> You are falling back into doing politics, not science.*
>>
>
> Jason, politics is the one and only reason we're having this conversation
> right now, if it wasn't for Donald J Trump and his inability to ever EVER
> admit that he was wrong about anything, like touting a quack cure months
> ago, nobody would even be talking about hydroxychloroquine anymore, and
> scientists aren't, but politicians and Fox pundits certainly are and they
> will never stop.
>
> > *Look at the studies. I read the abstracts of all 65 of the studies
>> that have been done.*
>>
>
> One large well performed study trumps 6.02*10^23 small poorly performed
> ones; and the scientific community has made its decision and they've
> decided that enough is enough and it's time to move on; but for the true
> believer too much is never enough so they will NEVER say OK you've
> convinced me it's time to do something else, they will ALWAYS say let's
> study it again, and again, and again, and again. And meanwhile people
> continue to die.
>
>  John K Clark
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2uj8FcD7mhCcobAGX8ZDmRKVpGKQT0qCP1g7UfF9SFEQ%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUi_gu5vLASRi6OgKe_3rwVh-V9mOeq1ZiLLS_D0wkmeCg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-08-09 Thread John Clark

On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 7:23 PM Jason Resch  wrote:

> *> I think you understand the difference between significant and
> statistically significant. *
>

If something is not statistically significant then there's no evidence
it is significant.
Period. The Human mind is just not very good at assessing probabilities, it's
easy to reach conclusions that seem intuitively obvious but are
nevertheless dead wrong, especially if the sample size is small, so it's
important to be mathematically rigorous in scientific papers.

*> The test size and methodology for this study left a lot to be desired.
> That is why, despite showing significant results, it was unable to attain
> statistical significance.*
>

Tests sizes are always finite and the results would always be better if the
test size was larger, but in this study for this drug the test size was the
largest there has ever been, so its results supersedes that of previous
studies.

> *> That means a large study is needed, not that we can conclude it does or
> doesn't work.*
>

Hydroxychloroquine has now become like ESP, regardless of how many tests
that indicate there's nothing there some will say we need to study it more,
a true believer will never EVER say "that's enough, I was wrong, let's move
on". But the difference is ESP belief may be silly but it doesn't kill
people, however every time you use finite resources for yet another study
of something that has already been studied to death you are NOT studying
other treatments that look far more promising and might actually work. And
that could kill people and probably already has.

*> You are falling back into doing politics, not science.*
>

Jason, politics is the one and only reason we're having this conversation
right now, if it wasn't for Donald J Trump and his inability to ever EVER
admit that he was wrong about anything, like touting a quack cure months
ago, nobody would even be talking about hydroxychloroquine anymore, and
scientists aren't, but politicians and Fox pundits certainly are and they
will never stop.

> *Look at the studies. I read the abstracts of all 65 of the studies that
> have been done.*
>

One large well performed study trumps 6.02*10^23 small poorly performed
ones; and the scientific community has made its decision and they've
decided that enough is enough and it's time to move on; but for the true
believer too much is never enough so they will NEVER say OK you've
convinced me it's time to do something else, they will ALWAYS say let's
study it again, and again, and again, and again. And meanwhile people
continue to die.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2uj8FcD7mhCcobAGX8ZDmRKVpGKQT0qCP1g7UfF9SFEQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-08-09 Thread PGC



On Sunday, August 9, 2020 at 1:23:17 AM UTC+2, Jason wrote:
>
> I know that arguing with you is generally a waste of time, but since lives 
> are at stake I felt it necessary to correct some of what you say below.
>
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 7:04 AM John Clark  > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 4:20 PM Jason Resch > > wrote:
>>
>> *> So infection rates in the control group were 14.3% and in the group 
>>> receiving HCQ were 11.8%.  That's an absolute risk reduction of 
>>> (14.3-11.8)/14.3 = 17.5%.*
>>
>>
>> And that is a rate that is not statistically significant, that is to say 
>> it was most likely a random artifact produced by the small sample size. And 
>> that is why every scientist who knows something about statistics was not 
>> hailing this is a major milestone in the fight against COVID-19 but instead 
>> was telling people to stop wasting their time talking about 
>> hydroxychloroquine and use that time to look for something that might 
>> actually work. 
>>
>
> I think you understand the difference between significant and 
> statistically significant.  When the drug was administered within 3 days 
> after exposure, it reduced by half the number of people who developed 
> symptoms. That is very significant, if indeed that reflects the true rate 
> of reduction.
>
> However, the test size and methodology for this study left a lot to be 
> desired. That is why, despite showing significant results, it was unable to 
> attain statistical significance. That means a large study is needed, not 
> that we can conclude it does or doesn't work.
>
>  
>
>> Of course there are still plenty of people screaming about the wonders of 
>> hydroxychloroquine, but none of them are scientists who know something 
>> about the subtleties of statistics; they are instead Internet pundits with 
>> 20 minutes of study of the science of epidemiology under their belt, 
>> fascist politicians desperate to win reelection, and quack doctors who 
>> babble about demon sperm and vaccines made from space alien DNA.
>>
>
> You are falling back into doing politics, not science. Look at the 
> studies. I read the abstracts of all 65 of the studies that have been done. 
> Ignore the politicians completely when it comes to this question.
>  
>
>>
>> Yes some early small scale tests hinted that hydroxychloroquine might be 
>> useful but the most important of them was retracted, to the great 
>> embarrassment of the journal involved, because the data used in it was 
>> suspect: 
>>
>> Retraction—Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide 
>> for treatment of COVID-19:  
>> 
>>
>
> That study was retracted because they demonstrably made up data. When they 
> were called out on it, refused to show the data they used.
>  
>
>>
>>
>> And later much larger and much better conducted trials  indicated 
>> hydroxychloroquine conferred no benefit in the treatment of COVID-19 and if 
>> anything was harmful:
>>
>> Three big studies dim hopes that hydroxychloroquine can treat or prevent 
>> COVID-19 
>> 
>>
>>
>>
> Let's look behind the headline at each of those three studies.
>
> *1. The Recovery Trial: https://c19study.com/recovery.html 
> *
> This was study gave the drug at a very late stage, when people were on 
> ventilators and close to death. If you study the disease progression, it 
> occurs in two phases. By the time the person is low on oxygen the virus is 
> already being cleared by the immune system, it is when the disease becomes 
> an immune disorder that is deadly. Anti-viral drugs are too late at that 
> time, but some anti-inflammatory sterorids have shown promise at this 
> stage: 
> https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/cheap-steroid-first-drug-shown-reduce-death-covid-19-patients
>
> *2. This is the Minessota study we discussed above: *
> https://c19study.com/boulwarepep.html
> It cut the disease rate in half when given at 72 hours after exposure, but 
> the test was not statistically powerful enough, as in addition to being 
> small, they combined the results with people who received the drug well 
> after they were exposed.
>
> *3. The Barcelona study: * https://c19study.com/mitjapep.html
> The article claims it showed HCQ is ineffective. Did it? No it showed 
> death rates were reduced from 0.6% to 0.4%. A reduction by 33%. But again, 
> their sample size was too small, this is based on 8 control cases and 5 
> treatment cases.
>
>
> We have studies where the drug is given to people at death's door, which 
> show it is not effective, and we have statistically weak studies (owing to 
> the fact that a small number of people ever get the disease) where it is 
> used prohplatically or after exposure.  In every case where it is given 
> early or prophylactically,

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-08-08 Thread Jason Resch

I know that arguing with you is generally a waste of time, but since lives
are at stake I felt it necessary to correct some of what you say below.

On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 7:04 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 4:20 PM Jason Resch  wrote:
>
> *> So infection rates in the control group were 14.3% and in the group
>> receiving HCQ were 11.8%.  That's an absolute risk reduction of
>> (14.3-11.8)/14.3 = 17.5%.*
>
>
> And that is a rate that is not statistically significant, that is to say
> it was most likely a random artifact produced by the small sample size. And
> that is why every scientist who knows something about statistics was not
> hailing this is a major milestone in the fight against COVID-19 but instead
> was telling people to stop wasting their time talking about
> hydroxychloroquine and use that time to look for something that might
> actually work.
>

I think you understand the difference between significant and statistically
significant.  When the drug was administered within 3 days after exposure,
it reduced by half the number of people who developed symptoms. That is
very significant, if indeed that reflects the true rate of reduction.

However, the test size and methodology for this study left a lot to be
desired. That is why, despite showing significant results, it was unable to
attain statistical significance. That means a large study is needed, not
that we can conclude it does or doesn't work.

> Of course there are still plenty of people screaming about the wonders of
> hydroxychloroquine, but none of them are scientists who know something
> about the subtleties of statistics; they are instead Internet pundits with
> 20 minutes of study of the science of epidemiology under their belt,
> fascist politicians desperate to win reelection, and quack doctors who
> babble about demon sperm and vaccines made from space alien DNA.
>

You are falling back into doing politics, not science. Look at the studies.
I read the abstracts of all 65 of the studies that have been done. Ignore
the politicians completely when it comes to this question.

>
> Yes some early small scale tests hinted that hydroxychloroquine might be
> useful but the most important of them was retracted, to the great
> embarrassment of the journal involved, because the data used in it was
> suspect:
>
> Retraction—Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide
> for treatment of COVID-19:
> 
>

That study was retracted because they demonstrably made up data. When they
were called out on it, refused to show the data they used.

>
>
> And later much larger and much better conducted trials  indicated
> hydroxychloroquine conferred no benefit in the treatment of COVID-19 and if
> anything was harmful:
>
> Three big studies dim hopes that hydroxychloroquine can treat or prevent
> COVID-19
> 
>
>
>
Let's look behind the headline at each of those three studies.

*1. The Recovery Trial: https://c19study.com/recovery.html
*
This was study gave the drug at a very late stage, when people were on
ventilators and close to death. If you study the disease progression, it
occurs in two phases. By the time the person is low on oxygen the virus is
already being cleared by the immune system, it is when the disease becomes
an immune disorder that is deadly. Anti-viral drugs are too late at that
time, but some anti-inflammatory sterorids have shown promise at this
stage:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/cheap-steroid-first-drug-shown-reduce-death-covid-19-patients

*2. This is the Minessota study we discussed above: *
https://c19study.com/boulwarepep.html
It cut the disease rate in half when given at 72 hours after exposure, but
the test was not statistically powerful enough, as in addition to being
small, they combined the results with people who received the drug well
after they were exposed.

*3. The Barcelona study: * https://c19study.com/mitjapep.html
The article claims it showed HCQ is ineffective. Did it? No it showed death
rates were reduced from 0.6% to 0.4%. A reduction by 33%. But again, their
sample size was too small, this is based on 8 control cases and 5 treatment
cases.

We have studies where the drug is given to people at death's door, which
show it is not effective, and we have statistically weak studies (owing to
the fact that a small number of people ever get the disease) where it is
used prohplatically or after exposure.  In every case where it is given
early or prophylactically, studies have shown a benefit.  Perhaps if you
combine all of these together you can get statistical significance.  If I
were exposed, I would paythe $20 for a 30% to 50% chance of stopping the
disease cold.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-08-08 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 4:20 PM Jason Resch  wrote:

*> So infection rates in the control group were 14.3% and in the group
> receiving HCQ were 11.8%.  That's an absolute risk reduction of
> (14.3-11.8)/14.3 = 17.5%.*

And that is a rate that is not statistically significant, that is to say it
was most likely a random artifact produced by the small sample size. And
that is why every scientist who knows something about statistics was not
hailing this is a major milestone in the fight against COVID-19 but instead
was telling people to stop wasting their time talking about
hydroxychloroquine and use that time to look for something that might
actually work. Of course there are still plenty of people screaming about
the wonders of hydroxychloroquine, but none of them are scientists who know
something about the subtleties of statistics; they are instead Internet
pundits with 20 minutes of study of the science of epidemiology under their
belt, fascist politicians desperate to win reelection, and quack doctors
who babble about demon sperm and vaccines made from space alien DNA.

Yes some early small scale tests hinted that hydroxychloroquine might be
useful but the most important of them was retracted, to the great
embarrassment of the journal involved, because the data used in it was
suspect:

Retraction—Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide
for treatment of COVID-19:

And later much larger and much better conducted trials  indicated
hydroxychloroquine conferred no benefit in the treatment of COVID-19 and if
anything was harmful:

Three big studies dim hopes that hydroxychloroquine can treat or prevent
COVID-19

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv23Q4U0VJjWKVaxV7aQVQgGAs954nUmb2g-JJXHJcdXuQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sharpiegate


I tracked down this study which indicates as Zelenko in NYC, and Anthony 
Cordilla in LA,  have asserted that Hydro by itself is useless, but its the 
Zinc that suppresses virus propagation with infected cells. Look, if freaking, 
Hitler advocated that yes, the new jet aircraft could win the war for us, I'd 
have looked deeply into that. 
https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5-188


-Original Message-
From: Jason Resch 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Sat, Aug 8, 2020 12:21 am
Subject: Re: Sharpiegate



On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 10:39 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
 wrote:

  Cite the study.
 


https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202007.0025/v1 Shows 84% less 
hospitlization, and 80% reduced mortality.

There's also this one: https://hcqtrial.com/ which shows 79% reduction in 
mortality. All of these are listed on https://c19study.com/
Jason

 Brent
 
 On 8/7/2020 7:40 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
  
The studies that have been done show as much as an 79% reduction in death. 
Should we force 79% more people die while we wait for the RCTs?
 
 -- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b2c8db53-c007-f529-dfd9-1f844beb4e2b%40verizon.net.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUgKRQPVLVX4MFYzqLvtKTECe%2BDbKf55f%3DRu3kDogmPQWw%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1293922554.122621.1596870855432%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Sharpiegate

John, if we go purely by supposed scientific method (and I contend that the 
experts have failed us) then the consensus of say going the ALCOR choice may be 
view by many lab-coated experts, as unworkable. Thus, if Orange Dude said that, 
"Yes those people involved in cryopreservation for later restoration to a full 
life later, is a smart move!" Well, would you object? If he said taking aspirin 
if recommended by you physician seems wise, would you not take one?  This is 
the problem when we let ideology drive scientific opinion. Studies are 
excellent one way or the other, so then we must ask ourselves what precisely is 
being measured? What is the method? If hydro is ineffective and dangerous then 
down the toilet it should go. Simple. No emotion involved, and back to the 
enzyme design screens we all go. 

-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, Aug 7, 2020 2:33 pm
Subject: Re: Sharpiegate

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 2:11 PM Jason Resch  wrote:

>> Only a fool would look to an imbecile and congenital liar such as Donald J 
>>Trump for medacal advice. There will always be scientific contrarians about 
>>anything but I look to the latest scientific consensus for my medacal advice, 
>>and the more recent it is the more it says hydroxychloroquine is worthless or 
>>even harmful in the treatment of COVID-19. 

> If your first thought as to the efficacy of a particular medication is to 
> point to what a particular politician said, 
 Historically if you had bet that the exact opposite of what that particular 
American politician had said was true then you would've won your bet far far 
more often than you'd expect by random chance. However Induction is not perfect 
so it can't give a guarantee of future success, but it's a pretty damn good 
rule of thumb.

> then I fear you may not be using the scientific method. 

I believe part of the scientific method is believing that what the consensus of 
the scientific community says is far more likely to be closer to the truth than 
what a right wing fascist president with a room temperature IQ (in Centigrade) 
says. 
 John K Clark-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3WoQ8mBkB2tmkjbO0pCDFvZ81uuOO6C-FEo5mXAutWQw%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/351385174.120614.1596869257300%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Sharpiegate


Bruno, A. Yang could think outside the box, but that sort of left him no room 
within his party. If I was any good at social engineering to make a better 
society, I'd have gone into law, and ran for office. Alas! Or more likely, 
Thank God! ("You know he doesn't like to be called that!" -Battlestar 
Galactica, the 2nd). I figure sort of like Bjorn Lomborg, Matt Ridley, Michael 
Schellenberger, that we have some workable solutions, and the trick is getting 
these into the right hands. I am not sure Yang's enthusiasm for thorium 
reactors is that way forward. Because if sodium is the moderator-coolant, then 
we know it burns on contact with air and explodes when exposed to water. I'd 
settle for a nice quiet solar panel if it could collect the energy enough for 
my dwelling and could store it with a advanced battery, for night, clouds, 
winter? I have always like Carlo Rubia's idea, now being realized in your own 
nation, the accelerator driven reactor. 
https://myrrha.be/
Mitch


-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, Aug 7, 2020 6:53 am
Subject: Re: Sharpiegate



On 7 Aug 2020, at 00:06, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:
I cannot help but agree with you on this Bruno. If we all agreed on politics, 
we wouldn't (as a species) developed the A-bomb, radar, the jet plane, missiles…

Of course that is a big IF. 
The advantage of democracy here is that we can agree on what we disagree, and 
make local try, and change our mind in case the results disconfirm the 
political idea.



Beyond this, there are many mutually, beneficial areas of research and 
development (including medical science) that we as a species, again, are 
underfunding. But, we have to be coldly rational about this, to all work on 
this together. 

That’s the key: working together, and avoiding the pitfall of private huge 
interest, which makes money from diseases and catastrophes, a bit like the jail 
lobby makes money from “crime”, leading to absurd notion like “non violent 
crime” (a crime is always violent, even if the violence is not “physical”!).


There must be a reasonably rapid ROI (return on investment) like a vaccine, for 
example, to return the global economy to "normal.”  

In a pandemic, money is not the real problem. Whatever amount of men you put in 
reconstructing after an *international* disaster is good investment, unless 
bandits take the money for them (which is a bit the actual problem in different 
places).
In fact, Andrew Yang (who was a candidate for the election) got it right I 
think: we should implement some form of universal allocation. Then we can let 
people make as much money as they want, or no money at all (which benefits 
terribly for the long run projects). But we are still a long way from this, 
alas. 


Also energy (yes, we have ITER in France but we need something quicker!) like 
solar (Perovskite solar), battery storage, Hydrogen (Europe's fav), transport, 
space, machine intelligence. 


I don’t think energy is a serious problem, except for its misuse by dishonest 
humans. Dishonesty *is* the problem, even more today than yesterday. The root 
of dishonesty is the lack of basic education, and the deviance of the human 
science, like with the political correctness attitude, etc.
Bruno





-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, Aug 6, 2020 6:47 am
Subject: Re: Sharpiegate



On 2 Aug 2020, at 02:29, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

Myself as well Jason. The pharmacy board appeared to be a political response 
here, rather than medical. If Hydro doesn't help it doesn't, and if it does it 
does. 



The health domain has been fully politicised since the law of prohibition.
The goal of prohibition was, right at the start, “political”. In fact the goal 
was to harass the Mexicans. It was pure unedulcorated racism, with the help of 
the (alcohol) prohibitionists who was looking for new substance to forbid 
(after the failure of alcohol prohibition). 
Prohibition is an antic technic to control people and arrest them arbitrarily. 
A famous use seems have to been done in Turkey, where a sultan made tobacco 
illegal … with a death penalty, and this only to kill all its opponents.
Prohibition is a nonsense. Even in a prison, you can’t control the drugs, so 
outside it …
Jack Cole, a founder of LEAP (cops against prohibition), said that God is the 
first prohibitionist (you will not eat this fruit), and God did not succeeded, 
despite its infinite power, and the fact that the population number was 2. 
Prohibition is just a technic to transform a free-market into a market driven 
by crime. It has been, and still is, the golden goose of the terrorists and the 
criminals. I read sometime ago that more than 90% of the benefits of 
prohibition and drug dealing is used to corrupt politicians for … continuing 
the prohibition.
Bruno





-Original Message-
From: Jason Res

Re: Sharpiegate

I hold with anything that materially helps no matter who opposes,and who 
supports. If Remdesvir works better that's great!! If the collection of plasma 
helps, lets roll on!! The experts have shot themselves in the ass so bad 
(understandable) that over 120 days we have learned that Sweden, for example 
did about as well as anyone else, (no isolation-no facemasks) and now the 
Netherlands seems to be following suit. Studies that say something doesn't 
work, but if you try it and it only costs $20 + whatever is charged for zinc, 
then I say go for it? That is unless somebody's medical history indicates it's 
contre-indicated. My suspicion is that some of these studies are driven by ass 
covering for physicians who really don't want to be sued. It's like there is a 
market for this kind of "research." 


-Original Message-
From: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, Aug 6, 2020 6:52 pm
Subject: Re: Sharpiegate

 8 | DISCUSSION As hospitals around the globe have filled with patients with 
COVID-19, front line providers remain without effective therapeutic tools to 
directly combat the disease. The initial anecdotal reports out of China led to 
the initial wide uptake of HCQ and to a lesser extent CQ for many hospitalized 
patients with COVID-19 around the globe. As more data have become available, 
enthusiasm for these medications has been tempered. Well designed, large 
randomized controlled trials are needed to help determine what role, if any, 
these medications should have in treating COVID-19 moving forwards. While HCQ 
has in vitro activity against a number of viruses, it does not act like more 
typical nucleoside/tide antiviral drugs. For instance, HCQ is not thought to 
act on the critical viral enzymes including the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, 
helicase, or proteases. Despite in vitro activity against influenza, in a large 
high quality randomized controlled trial, it showed no clinical benefit, 
suggesting that similar discordance between in vitro and in vivo observations 
is possible for SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-273 (Table 3). 
 
 
 Additionally, HCQ and especially CQ have cardiovascular and other risks, 
particularly when these agents are used at high doses or combined with certain 
other agents. While large scale studies have demonstrated that long-term 
treatment with CQ or HCQ does not increase the incidence of infection, caution 
should be exercised in extrapolating safety from the studies of chronic 
administration to largely healthy individuals to estimate the risk associated 
with short-course treatment in acutely  and severely ill patients. Furthermore, 
the immunologic actions that make HCQ an important drug for the treatment of 
auto-immune diseases might have unintended consequences when it is used for 
patients with COVID-19. The effects of this immune modulation on patients with 
COVID-19 are unknown at this time, including a potential negative impact on 
antiviral innate and adaptive immune responses which need to be considered and 
studied. For all these reasons, and in the context of accumulating preclinical 
and clinical data, we recommend that HCQ only be used for COVID-19 in the 
context of a carefully constructed randomized clinical trial. If this agent is 
used outside of a clinical trial, the risks and benefits should be rigorously 
weighed on a case-by-case basis and reviewed in light of both the immune 
dysfunction induced by the virus and known antiviral and immune modulatory 
actions of HCQ.
 
 https://faseb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1096/fj.202000919
 
 Brent
 
 On 8/6/2020 2:52 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
  
 
If you are saying that Hydro either works or it doesn't I am in total 
agreement. The main thing since March has been not hydro, by itself, but in 
combination with zinc, which has long been used for the proverbial common cold, 
(sometimes works!) and even pneumonia's. Getting zinc in the cells is the 
claim. By itself, hydroxychloroquine is jack. Now, if hydro + zinc is 
ineffective, then screw it. The campaign against hydroxychloroquine is not 
medical science, but the technique of US political theorist, Saul Alinsky:  6. 
“A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging 
and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest 
better ones.  
 Now the best thing is to find drugs that really work in fighting the 
infection, and yes, finally some vaccines! Beyond this, it is worth it for me 
as a taxpayer, to pay the billionaire pharma boards of directors all the cash 
they need (want) to give us all a break. This would be worth a tax increase if 
needed. 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: PGC 
 To: Everything List 
 Sent: Thu, Aug 6, 2020 6:00 am
 Subject: Re: Sharpiegate
 
   
 
 On Thursday, August 6, 2020 at 11:33:37 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
 
  
 On 31 Jul 2020, at 22:06, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wro

Re: Sharpiegate

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 10:39 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Cite the study.
>
>
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202007.0025/v1 Shows 84% less
hospitlization, and 80% reduced mortality.

There's also this one: https://hcqtrial.com/ which shows 79% reduction in
mortality.

All of these are listed on https://c19study.com/

Jason

Brent
>
> On 8/7/2020 7:40 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> The studies that have been done show as much as an 79% reduction in death.
> Should we force 79% more people die while we wait for the RCTs?
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b2c8db53-c007-f529-dfd9-1f844beb4e2b%40verizon.net
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUgKRQPVLVX4MFYzqLvtKTECe%2BDbKf55f%3DRu3kDogmPQWw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-08-07 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List


Cite the study.

Brent

On 8/7/2020 7:40 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
The studies that have been done show as much as an 79% reduction in 
death. Should we force 79% more people die while we wait for the RCTs?


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b2c8db53-c007-f529-dfd9-1f844beb4e2b%40verizon.net.

Re: Sharpiegate

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 3:19 PM Jason Resch  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 2:46 PM John Clark  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 2:51 PM Jason Resch  wrote:
>>
>> > The scientific consensus is based on scientific studies, is it not?
>>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> *> Every single study  (dozens of them) that
>>> investigated early and prophylactic use of HCQ showed a benefit, without
>>> exception.*
>>>
>>
>> A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for
>> Covid-19 
>>
>> *> So then, what is the scientific consensus on early/prophylactic use?*
>>
>>
>> *"CONCLUSIONS: After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19,
>> hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or
>> confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days
>> after exposure. [...] Side effects were more common with hydroxychloroquine
>> than with placebo"*
>>
>>
> The *CONCLUSIONS* don't align with what the *RESULTS* section said right
> above.
>
> "We enrolled 821 asymptomatic participants. Overall, 87.6% of the
> participants (719 of 821) reported a high-risk exposure to a confirmed
> Covid-19 contact. The incidence of new illness compatible with Covid-19 did
> not differ significantly between participants receiving hydroxychloroquine
> (49 of 414 [11.8%]) and those receiving placebo (58 of 407 [14.3%]); the
> absolute difference was −2.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval,
> −7.0 to 2.2; P=0.35). Side effects were more common with hydroxychloroquine
> than with placebo (40.1% vs. 16.8%), but no serious adverse reactions were
> reported."
>
> So infection rates in the control group were 14.3% and in the group
> receiving HCQ were 11.8%.  That's an absolute risk reduction of
> (14.3-11.8)/14.3 = 17.5%.
>
> Moreover, the claim is that HCQ reduces severity of the symptoms, leading
> to less hospitalization and death, not that it grants immunity from
> contracting it.
>
> The test did not find a negative result, it failed to reach statistical
> significance because their sample size was too small.  See more information
> about that study here: https://c19study.com/boulware.html
>
> Jason
>

Using the study's own data, there is a statistically significant strong
association with treatment delay and emergence of symptoms:

"COVID-19 cases are reduced by [49%, 29%, 16%] respectively when taken
within ~[70, 94, 118] hours of exposure (including shipping delay). The
treatment delay-response relationship is significant at p=0.002. The data
is consistent with earlier treatment being even more effective."

Jason

>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUgsyBM5DOke7kbH7%3DL%2BnikcHTGGAfrAc1G2iSUay%2B9AQg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sharpiegate

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 2:46 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 2:51 PM Jason Resch  wrote:
>
> > The scientific consensus is based on scientific studies, is it not?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
> *> Every single study  (dozens of them) that
>> investigated early and prophylactic use of HCQ showed a benefit, without
>> exception.*
>>
>
> A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for
> Covid-19 
>
> *> So then, what is the scientific consensus on early/prophylactic use?*
>
>
> *"CONCLUSIONS: After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19,
> hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or
> confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days
> after exposure. [...] Side effects were more common with hydroxychloroquine
> than with placebo"*
>
>
The *CONCLUSIONS* don't align with what the *RESULTS* section said right
above.

"We enrolled 821 asymptomatic participants. Overall, 87.6% of the
participants (719 of 821) reported a high-risk exposure to a confirmed
Covid-19 contact. The incidence of new illness compatible with Covid-19 did
not differ significantly between participants receiving hydroxychloroquine
(49 of 414 [11.8%]) and those receiving placebo (58 of 407 [14.3%]); the
absolute difference was −2.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval,
−7.0 to 2.2; P=0.35). Side effects were more common with hydroxychloroquine
than with placebo (40.1% vs. 16.8%), but no serious adverse reactions were
reported."

So infection rates in the control group were 14.3% and in the group
receiving HCQ were 11.8%.  That's an absolute risk reduction of
(14.3-11.8)/14.3 = 17.5%.

Moreover, the claim is that HCQ reduces severity of the symptoms, leading
to less hospitalization and death, not that it grants immunity from
contracting it.

The test did not find a negative result, it failed to reach statistical
significance because their sample size was too small.  See more information
about that study here: https://c19study.com/boulware.html

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUgZqodLXtJpG9AZsoAQQKEGoe1hSY97WAvufdTsD6b%2BUQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-08-07 Thread Lawrence Crowell

On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 2:46:49 PM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 2:51 PM Jason Resch  wrote:
>
> > The scientific consensus is based on scientific studies, is it not?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
> *> Every single study  (dozens of them) that 
>> investigated early and prophylactic use of HCQ showed a benefit, without 
>> exception.*
>>
>
> A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for 
> Covid-19 
>
> *> So then, what is the scientific consensus on early/prophylactic use?*
>
>
> *"CONCLUSIONS: After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, 
> hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or 
> confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days 
> after exposure. [...] Side effects were more common with hydroxychloroquine 
> than with placebo"*
>
>  John K Clark
>

This is my understanding as well, and what I get with the ProMED messages. 

The internet and digital age has boomeranged on us. There was a promise of 
there being a world library and a renaissance in facilitating research. 
Instead, besides the commercial stuff, we have become a world of lies and 
liars, where alt-realities, pseudo-facts and just plain rot and lies has 
come dominate things. We are going from the age of enlightenment to 
endarkenment, where things that are factually false continue to be 
generated and ardently defended. This is how dark ages start.

LC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e489234b-c2cb-43ad-86c8-ac0e5007c81en%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-08-07 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 2:51 PM Jason Resch  wrote:

> The scientific consensus is based on scientific studies, is it not?
>

Yes.

*> Every single study  (dozens of them) that
> investigated early and prophylactic use of HCQ showed a benefit, without
> exception.*
>

A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for
Covid-19 

*> So then, what is the scientific consensus on early/prophylactic use?*

*"CONCLUSIONS: After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19,
hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or
confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days
after exposure. [...] Side effects were more common with hydroxychloroquine
than with placebo"*

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3%3DLV7kMoGBPw4JvZi4V%2BZOrwgGrOW%2BAuMDPB2JzKCmMQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sharpiegate

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 1:33 PM John Clark  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 2:11 PM Jason Resch  wrote:
>
> >> Only a fool would look to an imbecile and congenital liar such as
>>> Donald J Trump for medacal advice. There will always be scientific
>>> contrarians about anything but I look to the latest scientific consensus
>>> for my medacal advice, and the more recent it is the more it says
>>> hydroxychloroquine is worthless or even harmful in the treatment of
>>> COVID-19.
>>>
>>
>> > *If your first thought as to the efficacy of a particular medication
>> is to point to what a particular politician said, *
>>
>
> Historically if you had bet that the exact opposite of what that particular
> American politician had said was true then you would've won your bet far
> far more often than you'd expect by random chance. However Induction is not
> perfect so it can't give a guarantee of future success, but it's a pretty
> damn good rule of thumb.
>
> *> then I fear you may not be using the scientific method. *
>
>
> I believe part of the scientific method is believing that what the
> consensus of the scientific community says is far more likely to be closer
> to the truth than what a right wing fascist president with a room
> temperature IQ (in Centigrade) says.
>
>
The scientific consensus is based on scientific studies, is it not?

*Every single study*  (dozens of them) that
investigated early and prophylactic use of HCQ showed a benefit, without
exception.

So then, what is the scientific consensus on early/prophylactic use?

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhxABR9hSp94m77bwAi1ixjEV8Gy4%2BSKJZ712NLxrJudA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-08-07 Thread PGC



On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 4:53:50 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 7 Aug 2020, at 13:09, PGC > wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 12:38:28 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7 Aug 2020, at 00:52, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> 8 | DISCUSSION As hospitals around the globe have filled with patients 
>> with COVID-19, front line providers remain without effective therapeutic 
>> tools to directly combat the disease. The initial anecdotal reports out of 
>> China led to the initial wide uptake of HCQ and to a lesser extent CQ for 
>> many hospitalized patients with COVID-19 around the globe. As more data 
>> have become available, enthusiasm for these medications has been tempered. 
>> Well designed, large randomized controlled trials are needed to help 
>> determine what role, if any, these medications should have in 
>> treating COVID-19 moving forwards. While HCQ has in vitro activity against 
>> a number of viruses, it does not act like more typical nucleoside/tide 
>> antiviral drugs. For instance, HCQ is not thought to act on the critical 
>> viral enzymes including the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, helicase, or 
>> proteases. Despite in vitro activity against influenza, in a large high 
>> quality randomized controlled trial, it showed no clinical benefit, 
>> suggesting that similar discordance between in vitro and in vivo 
>> observations is possible for SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-273 (Table 3). 
>>
>>
>> Additionally, HCQ and especially CQ have cardiovascular and other risks, 
>> particularly when these agents are used at high doses or combined with 
>> certain other agents. While large scale studies have demonstrated that 
>> long-term treatment with CQ or HCQ does not increase the incidence of 
>> infection, caution should be exercised in extrapolating safety from the 
>> studies of chronic administration to largely healthy individuals to 
>> estimate the risk associated with short-course treatment in acutely  and 
>> severely ill patients. Furthermore, the immunologic actions that make HCQ 
>> an important drug for the treatment of auto-immune diseases might have 
>> unintended consequences when it is used for patients with COVID-19. The 
>> effects of this immune modulation on patients with COVID-19 are unknown at 
>> this time, including a potential negative impact on antiviral innate and 
>> adaptive immune responses which need to be considered and studied. For all 
>> these reasons, and in the context of accumulating preclinical and clinical 
>> data, we recommend that HCQ only be used for COVID-19 in the context of a 
>> carefully constructed randomized clinical trial. If this agent is used 
>> outside of a clinical trial, the risks and benefits should be rigorously 
>> weighed on a case-by-case basis and reviewed in light of both the immune 
>> dysfunction induced by the virus and known antiviral and immune modulatory 
>> actions of HCQ.
>>
>> https://faseb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1096/fj.202000919
>>
>>
>>
>> Just to be sure, I have no problem with this. My point is just that 
>> today, there are studies indicating that HCQ might be slightly better than 
>> Remdesevir, and that the Media are wrong when mocking Trump on HCQ in some 
>> systematic way. 
>>
>
> You're out of your field here. People out on the front lines shouldn't be 
> subjecting high numbers of suffering folks to medical treatment based on 
> some studies indicating "might be slightly better than…". 
>
>
> If serious studies shows that a medication is better than another, why 
> not, in case you do have confidence in those studies of course. As you say, 
> I am not a physician, and I have no real clue which medication I would use. 
> My point was just that it is hard to trust the FDA on this, and the media 
> is not exceptionally valid on this.
>
>
>
>
> As Brent quoted, it should read "Well designed, large randomized 
> controlled trials are needed". You make it a point to advertise your 
> humility and awareness of your ignorance as a scientist. Thankfully, 
> Doctors around the world are not mechanists according to Bruno or Raoults 
> and act with *more* humility and cooler heads relative to the studies you 
> refer to, and interpret them as premature, until more solid evidence may 
> change the picture.
>
>
> ?
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>> Most people in the virology community defending HCQ are not favorable to 
>> the preventive use of HCQ, and propose precise protocol to be used, and 
>> actually, claims that it asks for a higher doze than its usual use, 
>> justifying a medical prescription. Only doctors could use it. And yes, that 
>> can have advert effect, but according to Raoult, they are slightly less 
>> severe than the one accompanying Remdesevir.
>>
>
> He doesn't provide that evidence. Not at the standards we're talking about.
>
>
> He does, or at least he provided many references.
>

Many? You're joking right? You can have a ton

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-08-07 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 2:11 PM Jason Resch  wrote:

>> Only a fool would look to an imbecile and congenital liar such as Donald
>> J Trump for medacal advice. There will always be scientific contrarians
>> about anything but I look to the latest scientific consensus for my medacal
>> advice, and the more recent it is the more it says hydroxychloroquine is
>> worthless or even harmful in the treatment of COVID-19.
>>
>
> > *If your first thought as to the efficacy of a particular medication is
> to point to what a particular politician said, *
>

Historically if you had bet that the exact opposite of what that particular
American politician had said was true then you would've won your bet far
far more often than you'd expect by random chance. However Induction is not
perfect so it can't give a guarantee of future success, but it's a pretty
damn good rule of thumb.

*> then I fear you may not be using the scientific method. *

I believe part of the scientific method is believing that what the
consensus of the scientific community says is far more likely to be closer
to the truth than what a right wing fascist president with a room
temperature IQ (in Centigrade) says.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3WoQ8mBkB2tmkjbO0pCDFvZ81uuOO6C-FEo5mXAutWQw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sharpiegate

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 10:41 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 6:38 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> *> the Media are wrong when mocking Trump on HCQ in some systematic way. *
>
>
> No they are not. Only a fool would look to an imbecile and congenital liar
> such as Donald J Trump for medacal advice. There will always be scientific
> contrarians about anything but I look to the latest scientific consensus
> for my medacal advice, and the more recent it is the more it says
> hydroxychloroquine is worthless or even harmful in the treatment of
> COVID-19.
>
>
If your first thought as to the efficacy of a particular medication is to
point to what a particular politician said, then I fear you may not be
using the scientific method.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUi2b0w5G0kuDN-zshsa_uL7RZL%2BTg0nEMGcjh%3D-V4zbCg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-08-07 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 6:38 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

*> the Media are wrong when mocking Trump on HCQ in some systematic way. *


No they are not. Only a fool would look to an imbecile and congenital liar
such as Donald J Trump for medacal advice. There will always be scientific
contrarians about anything but I look to the latest scientific consensus
for my medacal advice, and the more recent it is the more it says
hydroxychloroquine is worthless or even harmful in the treatment of
COVID-19.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1vonDWBgfcZi4Je_bn19fA88tLzt1_rc66oRr3s_SkZg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-08-07 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 7 Aug 2020, at 13:09, PGC  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 12:38:28 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 7 Aug 2020, at 00:52, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>> > wrote:
>> 
>> 8 | DISCUSSION As hospitals around the globe have filled with patients with 
>> COVID-19, front line providers remain without effective therapeutic tools to 
>> directly combat the disease. The initial anecdotal reports out of China led 
>> to the initial wide uptake of HCQ and to a lesser extent CQ for many 
>> hospitalized patients with COVID-19 around the globe. As more data have 
>> become available, enthusiasm for these medications has been tempered. Well 
>> designed, large randomized controlled trials are needed to help determine 
>> what role, if any, these medications should have in treating COVID-19 moving 
>> forwards. While HCQ has in vitro activity against a number of viruses, it 
>> does not act like more typical nucleoside/tide antiviral drugs. For 
>> instance, HCQ is not thought to act on the critical viral enzymes including 
>> the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, helicase, or proteases. Despite in vitro 
>> activity against influenza, in a large high quality randomized controlled 
>> trial, it showed no clinical benefit, suggesting that similar discordance 
>> between in vitro and in vivo observations is possible for SARS-CoV and 
>> SARS-CoV-273 (Table 3). 
>> 
>> 
>> Additionally, HCQ and especially CQ have cardiovascular and other risks, 
>> particularly when these agents are used at high doses or combined with 
>> certain other agents. While large scale studies have demonstrated that 
>> long-term treatment with CQ or HCQ does not increase the incidence of 
>> infection, caution should be exercised in extrapolating safety from the 
>> studies of chronic administration to largely healthy individuals to estimate 
>> the risk associated with short-course treatment in acutely  and severely ill 
>> patients. Furthermore, the immunologic actions that make HCQ an important 
>> drug for the treatment of auto-immune diseases might have unintended 
>> consequences when it is used for patients with COVID-19. The effects of this 
>> immune modulation on patients with COVID-19 are unknown at this time, 
>> including a potential negative impact on antiviral innate and adaptive 
>> immune responses which need to be considered and studied. For all these 
>> reasons, and in the context of accumulating preclinical and clinical data, 
>> we recommend that HCQ only be used for COVID-19 in the context of a 
>> carefully constructed randomized clinical trial. If this agent is used 
>> outside of a clinical trial, the risks and benefits should be rigorously 
>> weighed on a case-by-case basis and reviewed in light of both the immune 
>> dysfunction induced by the virus and known antiviral and immune modulatory 
>> actions of HCQ.
>> 
>> https://faseb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1096/fj.202000919 
>> 
> 
> 
> Just to be sure, I have no problem with this. My point is just that today, 
> there are studies indicating that HCQ might be slightly better than 
> Remdesevir, and that the Media are wrong when mocking Trump on HCQ in some 
> systematic way.
> 
> You're out of your field here. People out on the front lines shouldn't be 
> subjecting high numbers of suffering folks to medical treatment based on some 
> studies indicating "might be slightly better than…".

If serious studies shows that a medication is better than another, why not, in 
case you do have confidence in those studies of course. As you say, I am not a 
physician, and I have no real clue which medication I would use. My point was 
just that it is hard to trust the FDA on this, and the media is not 
exceptionally valid on this.




> As Brent quoted, it should read "Well designed, large randomized controlled 
> trials are needed". You make it a point to advertise your humility and 
> awareness of your ignorance as a scientist. Thankfully, Doctors around the 
> world are not mechanists according to Bruno or Raoults and act with more 
> humility and cooler heads relative to the studies you refer to, and interpret 
> them as premature, until more solid evidence may change the picture.

?




>  
> Most people in the virology community defending HCQ are not favorable to the 
> preventive use of HCQ, and propose precise protocol to be used, and actually, 
> claims that it asks for a higher doze than its usual use, justifying a 
> medical prescription. Only doctors could use it. And yes, that can have 
> advert effect, but according to Raoult, they are slightly less severe than 
> the one accompanying Remdesevir.
> 
> He doesn't provide that evidence. Not at the standards we're talking about.

He does, or at least he provided many references. I do not conclude anything 
about the content of those papers; My point is that such analysis exist (Jason 
gave some links

Re: Sharpiegate

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020, 6:09 AM PGC  wrote:

>
>
> On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 12:38:28 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7 Aug 2020, at 00:52, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> 8 | DISCUSSION As hospitals around the globe have filled with patients
>> with COVID-19, front line providers remain without effective therapeutic
>> tools to directly combat the disease. The initial anecdotal reports out of
>> China led to the initial wide uptake of HCQ and to a lesser extent CQ for
>> many hospitalized patients with COVID-19 around the globe. As more data
>> have become available, enthusiasm for these medications has been tempered.
>> Well designed, large randomized controlled trials are needed to help
>> determine what role, if any, these medications should have in
>> treating COVID-19 moving forwards. While HCQ has in vitro activity against
>> a number of viruses, it does not act like more typical nucleoside/tide
>> antiviral drugs. For instance, HCQ is not thought to act on the critical
>> viral enzymes including the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, helicase, or
>> proteases. Despite in vitro activity against influenza, in a large high
>> quality randomized controlled trial, it showed no clinical benefit,
>> suggesting that similar discordance between in vitro and in vivo
>> observations is possible for SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-273 (Table 3).
>>
>>
>> Additionally, HCQ and especially CQ have cardiovascular and other risks,
>> particularly when these agents are used at high doses or combined with
>> certain other agents. While large scale studies have demonstrated that
>> long-term treatment with CQ or HCQ does not increase the incidence of
>> infection, caution should be exercised in extrapolating safety from the
>> studies of chronic administration to largely healthy individuals to
>> estimate the risk associated with short-course treatment in acutely  and
>> severely ill patients. Furthermore, the immunologic actions that make HCQ
>> an important drug for the treatment of auto-immune diseases might have
>> unintended consequences when it is used for patients with COVID-19. The
>> effects of this immune modulation on patients with COVID-19 are unknown at
>> this time, including a potential negative impact on antiviral innate and
>> adaptive immune responses which need to be considered and studied. For all
>> these reasons, and in the context of accumulating preclinical and clinical
>> data, we recommend that HCQ only be used for COVID-19 in the context of a
>> carefully constructed randomized clinical trial. If this agent is used
>> outside of a clinical trial, the risks and benefits should be rigorously
>> weighed on a case-by-case basis and reviewed in light of both the immune
>> dysfunction induced by the virus and known antiviral and immune modulatory
>> actions of HCQ.
>>
>> https://faseb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1096/fj.202000919
>>
>>
>>
>> Just to be sure, I have no problem with this. My point is just that
>> today, there are studies indicating that HCQ might be slightly better than
>> Remdesevir, and that the Media are wrong when mocking Trump on HCQ in some
>> systematic way.
>>
>
> You're out of your field here. People out on the front lines shouldn't be
> subjecting high numbers of suffering folks to medical treatment based on
> some studies indicating "might be slightly better than...". As Brent
> quoted, it should read "Well designed, large randomized controlled trials
> are needed".
>

The studies that have been done show as much as an 79% reduction in death.
Should we force 79% more people die while we wait for the RCTs?

Where were the RCTs on proning, ventilators, low pressure oxygen, zinc,
vitamin C, etc.? All of which are being used without controversy

Only this drug has been held to such high standards when we know it is
generally safe.

We are doing and should continue to do more and better studies, but we
shouldn't deny doctors and patients from trying it if they make that call
based on the data that's available now.

Jason


You make it a point to advertise your humility and awareness of your
> ignorance as a scientist. Thankfully, Doctors around the world are not
> mechanists according to Bruno or Raoults and act with *more* humility and
> cooler heads relative to the studies you refer to, and interpret them as
> premature, until more solid evidence may change the picture.
>
>
>> Most people in the virology community defending HCQ are not favorable to
>> the preventive use of HCQ, and propose precise protocol to be used, and
>> actually, claims that it asks for a higher doze than its usual use,
>> justifying a medical prescription. Only doctors could use it. And yes, that
>> can have advert effect, but according to Raoult, they are slightly less
>> severe than the one accompanying Remdesevir.
>>
>
> He doesn't provide that evidence. Not at the standards we're talking about.
>
>
>>
>> Some Media makes me nervous because

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-08-07 Thread PGC



On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 12:38:28 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 7 Aug 2020, at 00:52, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> 8 | DISCUSSION As hospitals around the globe have filled with patients 
> with COVID-19, front line providers remain without effective therapeutic 
> tools to directly combat the disease. The initial anecdotal reports out of 
> China led to the initial wide uptake of HCQ and to a lesser extent CQ for 
> many hospitalized patients with COVID-19 around the globe. As more data 
> have become available, enthusiasm for these medications has been tempered. 
> Well designed, large randomized controlled trials are needed to help 
> determine what role, if any, these medications should have in 
> treating COVID-19 moving forwards. While HCQ has in vitro activity against 
> a number of viruses, it does not act like more typical nucleoside/tide 
> antiviral drugs. For instance, HCQ is not thought to act on the critical 
> viral enzymes including the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, helicase, or 
> proteases. Despite in vitro activity against influenza, in a large high 
> quality randomized controlled trial, it showed no clinical benefit, 
> suggesting that similar discordance between in vitro and in vivo 
> observations is possible for SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-273 (Table 3). 
>
>
> Additionally, HCQ and especially CQ have cardiovascular and other risks, 
> particularly when these agents are used at high doses or combined with 
> certain other agents. While large scale studies have demonstrated that 
> long-term treatment with CQ or HCQ does not increase the incidence of 
> infection, caution should be exercised in extrapolating safety from the 
> studies of chronic administration to largely healthy individuals to 
> estimate the risk associated with short-course treatment in acutely  and 
> severely ill patients. Furthermore, the immunologic actions that make HCQ 
> an important drug for the treatment of auto-immune diseases might have 
> unintended consequences when it is used for patients with COVID-19. The 
> effects of this immune modulation on patients with COVID-19 are unknown at 
> this time, including a potential negative impact on antiviral innate and 
> adaptive immune responses which need to be considered and studied. For all 
> these reasons, and in the context of accumulating preclinical and clinical 
> data, we recommend that HCQ only be used for COVID-19 in the context of a 
> carefully constructed randomized clinical trial. If this agent is used 
> outside of a clinical trial, the risks and benefits should be rigorously 
> weighed on a case-by-case basis and reviewed in light of both the immune 
> dysfunction induced by the virus and known antiviral and immune modulatory 
> actions of HCQ.
>
> https://faseb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1096/fj.202000919
>
>
>
> Just to be sure, I have no problem with this. My point is just that today, 
> there are studies indicating that HCQ might be slightly better than 
> Remdesevir, and that the Media are wrong when mocking Trump on HCQ in some 
> systematic way. 
>

You're out of your field here. People out on the front lines shouldn't be 
subjecting high numbers of suffering folks to medical treatment based on 
some studies indicating "might be slightly better than...". As Brent 
quoted, it should read "Well designed, large randomized controlled trials 
are needed". You make it a point to advertise your humility and awareness 
of your ignorance as a scientist. Thankfully, Doctors around the world are 
not mechanists according to Bruno or Raoults and act with *more* humility 
and cooler heads relative to the studies you refer to, and interpret them 
as premature, until more solid evidence may change the picture.
 

> Most people in the virology community defending HCQ are not favorable to 
> the preventive use of HCQ, and propose precise protocol to be used, and 
> actually, claims that it asks for a higher doze than its usual use, 
> justifying a medical prescription. Only doctors could use it. And yes, that 
> can have advert effect, but according to Raoult, they are slightly less 
> severe than the one accompanying Remdesevir.
>

He doesn't provide that evidence. Not at the standards we're talking about.
 

>
> Some Media makes me nervous because they argument seems to be just “Trump 
> said x” so x is stupid”, which is of course a stupid argument, even if 
> without any other information it makes some abductive sense (I do not 
> disagree with Clark on this).
>

That distracts from the work and evaluations that the majority working on 
the field are taking every day. The entire field globally is faced with an 
unprecedented workload so it is hardly a surprise that people don't have 
the time to go on social media to pontificate about arguments. That's a 
problem because disinformation inflates itself with the self-righteousness 
of folks articulating their voices in a

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-08-07 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 7 Aug 2020, at 00:06, spudboy100 via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> I cannot help but agree with you on this Bruno. If we all agreed on politics, 
> we wouldn't (as a species) developed the A-bomb, radar, the jet plane, 
> missiles…

Of course that is a big IF. 

The advantage of democracy here is that we can agree on what we disagree, and 
make local try, and change our mind in case the results disconfirm the 
political idea.



> Beyond this, there are many mutually, beneficial areas of research and 
> development (including medical science) that we as a species, again, are 
> underfunding. But, we have to be coldly rational about this, to all work on 
> this together.

That’s the key: working together, and avoiding the pitfall of private huge 
interest, which makes money from diseases and catastrophes, a bit like the jail 
lobby makes money from “crime”, leading to absurd notion like “non violent 
crime” (a crime is always violent, even if the violence is not “physical”!).


> There must be a reasonably rapid ROI (return on investment) like a vaccine, 
> for example, to return the global economy to "normal.” 

In a pandemic, money is not the real problem. Whatever amount of men you put in 
reconstructing after an *international* disaster is good investment, unless 
bandits take the money for them (which is a bit the actual problem in different 
places).

In fact, Andrew Yang (who was a candidate for the election) got it right I 
think: we should implement some form of universal allocation. Then we can let 
people make as much money as they want, or no money at all (which benefits 
terribly for the long run projects). But we are still a long way from this, 
alas. 


> Also energy (yes, we have ITER in France but we need something quicker!) like 
> solar (Perovskite solar), battery storage, Hydrogen (Europe's fav), 
> transport, space, machine intelligence. 

I don’t think energy is a serious problem, except for its misuse by dishonest 
humans. Dishonesty *is* the problem, even more today than yesterday. The root 
of dishonesty is the lack of basic education, and the deviance of the human 
science, like with the political correctness attitude, etc.

Bruno



> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Marchal 
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Thu, Aug 6, 2020 6:47 am
> Subject: Re: Sharpiegate
> 
> 
>> On 2 Aug 2020, at 02:29, spudboy100 via Everything List 
>> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Myself as well Jason. The pharmacy board appeared to be a political response 
>> here, rather than medical. If Hydro doesn't help it doesn't, and if it does 
>> it does. 
> 
> 
> The health domain has been fully politicised since the law of prohibition.
> 
> The goal of prohibition was, right at the start, “political”. In fact the 
> goal was to harass the Mexicans. It was pure unedulcorated racism, with the 
> help of the (alcohol) prohibitionists who was looking for new substance to 
> forbid (after the failure of alcohol prohibition). 
> 
> Prohibition is an antic technic to control people and arrest them 
> arbitrarily. A famous use seems have to been done in Turkey, where a sultan 
> made tobacco illegal … with a death penalty, and this only to kill all its 
> opponents.
> 
> Prohibition is a nonsense. Even in a prison, you can’t control the drugs, so 
> outside it …
> 
> Jack Cole, a founder of LEAP (cops against prohibition), said that God is the 
> first prohibitionist (you will not eat this fruit), and God did not 
> succeeded, despite its infinite power, and the fact that the population 
> number was 2. 
> 
> Prohibition is just a technic to transform a free-market into a market driven 
> by crime. It has been, and still is, the golden goose of the terrorists and 
> the criminals. I read sometime ago that more than 90% of the benefits of 
> prohibition and drug dealing is used to corrupt politicians for … continuing 
> the prohibition.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jason Resch mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>>
>> To: spudboy...@aol.com <mailto:spudboy...@aol.com>
>> Cc: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
>> <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com> > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>>
>> Sent: Sat, Aug 1, 2020 5:36 pm
>> Subject: Re: Sharpiegate
>> 
>> I agree it is unfortunate that what should purely be a medical/risk 
>> management decision has become politicized.
>> 
>> Fortunately the Ohio's governor intervened to make the pharmacy board 
>> reversed their ban 
>> <https://www.wkbn.com/news/coronavirus/ohio-board-of-pharmacy-withdraws-hydroxychloroquine-rul

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-08-07 Thread Bruno Marchal

g since March has been not hydro, by itself, but in 
>> combination with zinc, which has long been used for the proverbial common 
>> cold, (sometimes works!) and even pneumonia's. Getting zinc in the cells is 
>> the claim. By itself, hydroxychloroquine is jack. Now, if hydro + zinc is 
>> ineffective, then screw it. The campaign against hydroxychloroquine is not 
>> medical science, but the technique of US political theorist, Saul Alinsky:  
>> 6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without 
>> urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even 
>> suggest better ones. 
>> 
>> Now the best thing is to find drugs that really work in fighting the 
>> infection, and yes, finally some vaccines! Beyond this, it is worth it for 
>> me as a taxpayer, to pay the billionaire pharma boards of directors all the 
>> cash they need (want) to give us all a break. This would be worth a tax 
>> increase if needed. 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: PGC  <mailto:multiplecit...@gmail.com>
>> To: Everything List  
>> <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
>> Sent: Thu, Aug 6, 2020 6:00 am
>> Subject: Re: Sharpiegate
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, August 6, 2020 at 11:33:37 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 31 Jul 2020, at 22:06, spudboy100 via Everything List 
>>> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> You really must read up on your history more Bruno, That term comes from 
>>> the nazis and not I. Here is a 2015 Scientific American article reviewing a 
>>> book by Philip Ball,  The Struggle for the Soul of Physics. 
>>> https://www. scientificamerican.com/ article/how-2-pro-nazi- 
>>> nobelists-attacked-einstein-s- jewish-science-excerpt1/ 
>>> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-2-pro-nazi-nobelists-attacked-einstein-s-jewish-science-excerpt1/>
>>> 
>>> I am accusing the politicization of medical science
>> 
>> That has been aggravated by the “marijuana conspiracy”. The book by Jack 
>> Herer remains a chef-d’oeuvre of investigation. He cites all its sources, 
>> and I have verified all of them. 
>> 
>> The problem is that when we do money with medication, there is an incentive 
>> to make people sick, and to avoid efficacious medication. Like the slogan 
>> sum up well: a cured patient is a lost client...
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> and the observations of physicians who have claimed that hydro can be 
>>> helpful.
>> 
>> I am not an expert to really judge this, but I know enough of logic to find 
>> mistakes in some critics against Didier Raoult (in France, a well-known 
>> pro-hydorxychoroquine). Then I learned that in many countries they are using 
>> hydroxychloroquine, with a success which seems better than with remdesivir. 
>> None of them are pananacea, and hydroxyhlorquine has to be used with a lot 
>> of care, at the benign of the infection, according to Didier Raoult. 
>> 
>> With your personal standards of effectiveness and that of guys like Raoult. 
>> Personally, I find that anything that doesn't satisfy the standards of 
>> randomized proper placebo controlled trial (even if for ethical reasons, you 
>> permit respirators etc. as standard of care for placebo) does not qualify as 
>> effective beyond doubt. If such trials properly conducted and controlled 
>> were to prove HCQ as effective, I would change my view.
>> 
>> Sure, if people want to take it with these nuances in mind, then no problem. 
>> What is concerning is the sense of false hope (and cash extracted from 
>> patients from drug makers and doctors) in the argumentation that this 
>> "really" has significant or sufficient effectiveness, when such trials are 
>> not completed as of today to my knowledge and people remain largely unaware 
>> of the nuances/degrees of effectiveness. In this kind of uninformed, 
>> hysterical environment, the argument can be made that Raoult is acting 
>> irresponsibly, as people are largely unable to differentiate on 
>> effectiveness and he uses his expert status to advance what is still a 
>> personal view until arguably higher standards of trials/effectiveness prove 
>> or disprove the claim. PGC
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-08-06 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

8 | DISCUSSION As hospitals around the globe have filled with patients 
with COVID-19, front line providers remain without effective therapeutic 
tools to directly combat the disease. The initial anecdotal reports out 
of China led to the initial wide uptake of HCQ and to a lesser extent CQ 
for many hospitalized patients with COVID-19 around the globe. As more 
data have become available, enthusiasm for these medications has been 
tempered. Well designed, large randomized controlled trials are needed 
to help determine what role, if any, these medications should have in 
treating COVID-19 moving forwards. While HCQ has in vitro activity 
against a number of viruses, it does not act like more typical 
nucleoside/tide antiviral drugs. For instance, HCQ is not thought to act 
on the critical viral enzymes including the RNA-dependent RNA 
polymerase, helicase, or proteases. Despite in vitro activity against 
influenza, in a large high quality randomized controlled trial, it 
showed no clinical benefit, suggesting that similar discordance between 
in vitro and in vivo observations is possible for SARS-CoV and 
SARS-CoV-273 (Table 3).



Additionally, HCQ and especially CQ have cardiovascular and other risks, 
particularly when these agents are used at high doses or combined with 
certain other agents. While large scale studies have demonstrated that 
long-term treatment with CQ or HCQ does not increase the incidence of 
infection, caution should be exercised in extrapolating safety from the 
studies of chronic administration to largely healthy individuals to 
estimate the risk associated with short-course treatment in acutely  and 
severely ill patients. Furthermore, the immunologic actions that make 
HCQ an important drug for the treatment of auto-immune diseases might 
have unintended consequences when it is used for patients with COVID-19. 
The effects of this immune modulation on patients with COVID-19 are 
unknown at this time, including a potential negative impact on antiviral 
innate and adaptive immune responses which need to be considered and 
studied. For all these reasons, and in the context of accumulating 
preclinical and clinical data, we recommend that HCQ only be used for 
COVID-19 in the context of a carefully constructed randomized clinical 
trial. If this agent is used outside of a clinical trial, the risks and 
benefits should be rigorously weighed on a case-by-case basis and 
reviewed in light of both the immune dysfunction induced by the virus 
and known antiviral and immune modulatory actions of HCQ.


https://faseb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1096/fj.202000919

Brent

On 8/6/2020 2:52 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
If you are saying that Hydro either works or it doesn't I am in total 
agreement. The main thing since March has been not hydro, by itself, 
but in combination with zinc, which has long been used for the 
proverbial common cold, (sometimes works!) and even pneumonia's. 
Getting zinc in the cells is the claim. By itself, hydroxychloroquine 
is jack. Now, if hydro + zinc is ineffective, then screw it. The 
campaign against hydroxychloroquine is not medical science, but the 
technique of US political theorist, Saul Alinsky: 6. “A good tactic is 
one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come 
back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest 
better ones.


Now the best thing is to find drugs that really work in fighting the 
infection, and yes, finally some vaccines! Beyond this, it is worth it 
for me as a taxpayer, to pay the billionaire pharma boards of 
directors all the cash they need (want) to give us all a break. This 
would be worth a tax increase if needed.


-Original Message-
From: PGC 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Thu, Aug 6, 2020 6:00 am
Subject: Re: Sharpiegate



On Thursday, August 6, 2020 at 11:33:37 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 31 Jul 2020, at 22:06, spudboy100 via Everything List
 wrote:

You really must read up on your history more Bruno, That term
comes from the nazis and not I. Here is a 2015 Scientific
American article reviewing a book by Philip Ball, The Struggle
for the Soul of Physics.
https://www. scientificamerican.com/ article/how-2-pro-nazi-
nobelists-attacked-einstein-s- jewish-science-excerpt1/

<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-2-pro-nazi-nobelists-attacked-einstein-s-jewish-science-excerpt1/>

I am accusing the politicization of medical science


That has been aggravated by the “marijuana conspiracy”. The book
by Jack Herer remains a chef-d’oeuvre of investigation. He cites
all its sources, and I have verified all of them.

The problem is that when we do money with medication, there is an
incentive to make people sick, and to avoid efficacious
medication. Like the slogan sum up well: a cured patient is a lost
client...





and the observations of physicians who have c

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-08-06 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

I cannot help but agree with you on this Bruno. If we all agreed on politics, 
we wouldn't (as a species) developed the A-bomb, radar, the jet plane, 
missiles...Beyond this, there are many mutually, beneficial areas of research 
and development (including medical science) that we as a species, again, are 
underfunding. But, we have to be coldly rational about this, to all work on 
this together. There must be a reasonably rapid ROI (return on investment) like 
a vaccine, for example, to return the global economy to "normal."  Also energy 
(yes, we have ITER in France but we need something quicker!) like solar 
(Perovskite solar), battery storage, Hydrogen (Europe's fav), transport, space, 
machine intelligence. 


-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, Aug 6, 2020 6:47 am
Subject: Re: Sharpiegate



On 2 Aug 2020, at 02:29, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

Myself as well Jason. The pharmacy board appeared to be a political response 
here, rather than medical. If Hydro doesn't help it doesn't, and if it does it 
does. 



The health domain has been fully politicised since the law of prohibition.
The goal of prohibition was, right at the start, “political”. In fact the goal 
was to harass the Mexicans. It was pure unedulcorated racism, with the help of 
the (alcohol) prohibitionists who was looking for new substance to forbid 
(after the failure of alcohol prohibition). 
Prohibition is an antic technic to control people and arrest them arbitrarily. 
A famous use seems have to been done in Turkey, where a sultan made tobacco 
illegal … with a death penalty, and this only to kill all its opponents.
Prohibition is a nonsense. Even in a prison, you can’t control the drugs, so 
outside it …
Jack Cole, a founder of LEAP (cops against prohibition), said that God is the 
first prohibitionist (you will not eat this fruit), and God did not succeeded, 
despite its infinite power, and the fact that the population number was 2. 
Prohibition is just a technic to transform a free-market into a market driven 
by crime. It has been, and still is, the golden goose of the terrorists and the 
criminals. I read sometime ago that more than 90% of the benefits of 
prohibition and drug dealing is used to corrupt politicians for … continuing 
the prohibition.
Bruno





-Original Message-
From: Jason Resch 
To: spudboy...@aol.com
Cc: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Sat, Aug 1, 2020 5:36 pm
Subject: Re: Sharpiegate

I agree it is unfortunate that what should purely be a medical/risk management 
decision has become politicized.

Fortunately the Ohio's governor intervened to make the pharmacy board reversed 
their ban. Whether any particular treatment is effective or not, the decision 
must remain one made by the patient and their doctor, in my opinion.
Jason

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 3:52 PM  wrote:

Yeah Jason, it's shouldn't be about ideology, but results. However, human 
nature is what it is, and often "faith" overwhelms facts. If someone hates 
Orange Man enough, and see Covid as something secondary or tertiary, they won't 
care. Even Scott Adams (Dilbert) was vehemently contemptuous of 
Hydroxychloroquine as useless or damaging, and spoke against it as of three 
weeks ago. Adams, changed his opinion based on new studies. Adams is not a 
physician or a scientist but always uses their papers and voices in his 
analysis. 12 min video follows. Adams is big league in math and science, but 
was an investment banker as first background. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCRGYtMgn4c


-Original Message-
From: Jason Resch 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Fri, Jul 31, 2020 7:12 pm
Subject: Re: Sharpiegate

There have been 65 studies on HCQ. Of all the tests that looked at giving it 
early in the disease, or prophylactically, they showed HCQ was beneficial. This 
site summarizes them all: https://c19study.com/
The only studies that have shown HCQ to be ineffective are those where it is 
given late in the disease progression (when the disease shifts from the viral 
replication phase to an immune system dysregulation phase (see page 2)). Even 
then, 61% of studies have shown some effectiveness even when it is given late.
Given the well-established safety record of HCQ, this is the dilemma we face:

|  | HCQ works | HCQ doesn't work |
| HCQ widely dispensed | 10,000s of thousands of lives saved | $20 wasted per 
patient |
| HCQ use restricted | 10,000s of thousands of needless deaths | $0 wasted per 
patient |


Even in the face of impartial information on its effectiveness, the decision is 
clear.
Jason


On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 5:52 PM PGC  wrote:



On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 3:58:02 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 30 Jul 2020, at 22:59, PGC  wrote:


On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 10:52:09 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote:

 
 
 On 7/30/2020 1:02 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
  
 Refute this Telmo- 
https://www.henryford.com/news/202

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-08-06 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

If you are saying that Hydro either works or it doesn't I am in total 
agreement. The main thing since March has been not hydro, by itself, but in 
combination with zinc, which has long been used for the proverbial common cold, 
(sometimes works!) and even pneumonia's. Getting zinc in the cells is the 
claim. By itself, hydroxychloroquine is jack. Now, if hydro + zinc is 
ineffective, then screw it. The campaign against hydroxychloroquine is not 
medical science, but the technique of US political theorist, Saul Alinsky:  6. 
“A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging 
and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest 
better ones. 
Now the best thing is to find drugs that really work in fighting the infection, 
and yes, finally some vaccines! Beyond this, it is worth it for me as a 
taxpayer, to pay the billionaire pharma boards of directors all the cash they 
need (want) to give us all a break. This would be worth a tax increase if 
needed. 

-Original Message-
From: PGC 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Thu, Aug 6, 2020 6:00 am
Subject: Re: Sharpiegate



On Thursday, August 6, 2020 at 11:33:37 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 31 Jul 2020, at 22:06, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:
You really must read up on your history more Bruno, That term comes from the 
nazis and not I. Here is a 2015 Scientific American article reviewing a book by 
Philip Ball,  The Struggle for the Soul of Physics. https://www. 
scientificamerican.com/ article/how-2-pro-nazi- nobelists-attacked-einstein-s- 
jewish-science-excerpt1/
I am accusing the politicization of medical science 

That has been aggravated by the “marijuana conspiracy”. The book by Jack Herer 
remains a chef-d’oeuvre of investigation. He cites all its sources, and I have 
verified all of them. 
The problem is that when we do money with medication, there is an incentive to 
make people sick, and to avoid efficacious medication. Like the slogan sum up 
well: a cured patient is a lost client...




and the observations of physicians who have claimed that hydro can be helpful.

I am not an expert to really judge this, but I know enough of logic to find 
mistakes in some critics against Didier Raoult (in France, a well-known 
pro-hydorxychoroquine). Then I learned that in many countries they are using 
hydroxychloroquine, with a success which seems better than with remdesivir. 
None of them are pananacea, and hydroxyhlorquine has to be used with a lot of 
care, at the benign of the infection, according to Didier Raoult. 

With your personal standards of effectiveness and that of guys like Raoult. 
Personally, I find that anything that doesn't satisfy the standards of 
randomized proper placebo controlled trial (even if for ethical reasons, you 
permit respirators etc. as standard of care for placebo) does not qualify as 
effective beyond doubt. If such trials properly conducted and controlled were 
to prove HCQ as effective, I would change my view.
Sure, if people want to take it with these nuances in mind, then no problem. 
What is concerning is the sense of false hope (and cash extracted from patients 
from drug makers and doctors) in the argumentation that this "really" has 
significant or sufficient effectiveness, when such trials are not completed as 
of today to my knowledge and people remain largely unaware of the 
nuances/degrees of effectiveness. In this kind of uninformed, hysterical 
environment, the argument can be made that Raoult is acting irresponsibly, as 
people are largely unable to differentiate on effectiveness and he uses his 
expert status to advance what is still a personal view until arguably higher 
standards of trials/effectiveness prove or disprove the claim. PGC-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/79488e75-1598-4a56-a69a-bf2cd269b2a2o%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/19925629.910360.1596750766738%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Sharpiegate


> On 2 Aug 2020, at 02:29, spudboy100 via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> Myself as well Jason. The pharmacy board appeared to be a political response 
> here, rather than medical. If Hydro doesn't help it doesn't, and if it does 
> it does. 


The health domain has been fully politicised since the law of prohibition.

The goal of prohibition was, right at the start, “political”. In fact the goal 
was to harass the Mexicans. It was pure unedulcorated racism, with the help of 
the (alcohol) prohibitionists who was looking for new substance to forbid 
(after the failure of alcohol prohibition). 

Prohibition is an antic technic to control people and arrest them arbitrarily. 
A famous use seems have to been done in Turkey, where a sultan made tobacco 
illegal … with a death penalty, and this only to kill all its opponents.

Prohibition is a nonsense. Even in a prison, you can’t control the drugs, so 
outside it …

Jack Cole, a founder of LEAP (cops against prohibition), said that God is the 
first prohibitionist (you will not eat this fruit), and God did not succeeded, 
despite its infinite power, and the fact that the population number was 2. 

Prohibition is just a technic to transform a free-market into a market driven 
by crime. It has been, and still is, the golden goose of the terrorists and the 
criminals. I read sometime ago that more than 90% of the benefits of 
prohibition and drug dealing is used to corrupt politicians for … continuing 
the prohibition.

Bruno




> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Resch 
> To: spudboy...@aol.com
> Cc: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> Sent: Sat, Aug 1, 2020 5:36 pm
> Subject: Re: Sharpiegate
> 
> I agree it is unfortunate that what should purely be a medical/risk 
> management decision has become politicized.
> 
> Fortunately the Ohio's governor intervened to make the pharmacy board 
> reversed their ban 
> <https://www.wkbn.com/news/coronavirus/ohio-board-of-pharmacy-withdraws-hydroxychloroquine-ruling-after-gov-dewines-request/>.
>  Whether any particular treatment is effective or not, the decision must 
> remain one made by the patient and their doctor, in my opinion.
> 
> Jason
> 
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 3:52 PM  <mailto:spudboy...@aol.com>> wrote:
> Yeah Jason, it's shouldn't be about ideology, but results. However, human 
> nature is what it is, and often "faith" overwhelms facts. If someone hates 
> Orange Man enough, and see Covid as something secondary or tertiary, they 
> won't care. Even Scott Adams (Dilbert) was vehemently contemptuous of 
> Hydroxychloroquine as useless or damaging, and spoke against it as of three 
> weeks ago. Adams, changed his opinion based on new studies. Adams is not a 
> physician or a scientist but always uses their papers and voices in his 
> analysis. 12 min video follows. Adams is big league in math and science, but 
> was an investment banker as first background. 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCRGYtMgn4c 
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCRGYtMgn4c>
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Resch mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>>
> To: Everything List  <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>>
> Sent: Fri, Jul 31, 2020 7:12 pm
> Subject: Re: Sharpiegate
> 
> There have been 65 studies on HCQ. Of all the tests that looked at giving it 
> early in the disease, or prophylactically, they showed HCQ was beneficial. 
> This site summarizes them all: https://c19study.com/ <https://c19study.com/>
> 
> The only studies that have shown HCQ to be ineffective are those where it is 
> given late in the disease progression (when the disease shifts from the viral 
> replication phase to an immune system dysregulation phase 
> <https://www.evms.edu/media/evms_public/departments/internal_medicine/EVMS_Critical_Care_COVID-19_Protocol.pdf>
>  (see page 2)). Even then, 61% of studies have shown some effectiveness even 
> when it is given late.
> 
> Given the well-established safety 
> <https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/resources/pdf/fsp/drugs/Hydroxychloroquine.pdf> 
> record of HCQ, this is the dilemma we face:
> 
> HCQ works HCQ doesn't work
> HCQ widely dispensed  10,000s of thousands of lives saved $20 wasted per 
> patient
> HCQ use restricted10,000s of thousands of needless deaths $0 wasted per 
> patient
> 
> Even in the face of impartial information on its effectiveness, the decision 
> is clear.
> 
> Jason
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 5:52 PM PGC  <mailto:multiplecit...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 3:58:02 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 30 Jul 2020, at 22:59, PGC > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 1

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-08-06 Thread PGC

On Thursday, August 6, 2020 at 11:18:53 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 31 Jul 2020, at 16:20, John Clark > 
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 9:19 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
>
> >  it is invalid to say that A is false because P asserts it
>
>
> There is more to intelligence than just deduction, there is also induction 
> which is at least as powerful. If everything P has asserted in the past has 
> been shown to be false and now P asserts A then you can conclude that A is 
> probably, although not certainly, also false. That's why most intelligent 
> people wouldn't accept medical advice from somebody who in the past has 
> asserted that vaccines are made from space alien sperm to make people less 
> religious, and ovarian cysts are caused by woman dreaming about having 
> sex with deamons. But Trump is fine with taking such advice because Trump 
> is not intelligent.
>
>
> My point was logical, and I agree it is wise to not follow an advice by 
> someone who has lied, … even just once, actually.
>

That is very Christian if it is read literally. In a violent world, 
everybody is plausibly placed into positions of knowingly making untrue 
statements. E.g. somebody taking some medication for a certain condition or 
suffering in an environment in which its use is prohibited, has 
self-preservation arguments for not telling their community and lying about 
the fact. A lie is always somehow discursively situated along frames of 
force, violent histories etc. Their examination imparts some intuition as 
to whether lies can appear more justifiable with respect to 
certain discourses or not. Merely a general "thou shalt not lie" + number 
of lies in some history is not sufficient.

>
> Here we do have a problem which is that the FDA has lied a lot also since 
> long, so we are a bit in between the pest and the cholera.
>

With the nuance that everybody's health is exposed to uncertainty and risk. 
There is increased incentive for transparency on the one hand (that didn't 
exist in case of prohibition), but increased incentive for established 
authorities and interests to profit on the other. PGC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fbecb3e1-2dbb-4188-82f1-66c5bfb374d5o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sharpiegate


> On 1 Aug 2020, at 05:37, Jason Resch  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 10:04 PM Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 11:48 AM Jason Resch  > wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:43 PM Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 11:25 AM Jason Resch  > wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:13 PM Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 10:49 AM Jason Resch  > wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:37 PM PGC  > wrote:
> On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 2:26:40 AM UTC+2, Jason wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:20 PM PGC > wrote:
> On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 1:12:49 AM UTC+2, Jason wrote:
> There have been 65 studies on HCQ. Of all the tests that looked at giving it 
> early in the disease, or prophylactically, they showed HCQ was beneficial. 
> This site summarizes them all: https://c19study.com/ 
> 
> The only studies that have shown HCQ to be ineffective are those where it is 
> given late in the disease progression (when the disease shifts from the viral 
> replication phase to an immune system dysregulation phase 
> 
>  (see page 2)). Even then, 61% of studies have shown some effectiveness even 
> when it is given late.
> 
> Given the well-established safety 
>  
> record of HCQ, this is the dilemma we face:
> 
> HCQ works HCQ doesn't work
> HCQ widely dispensed  10,000s of thousands of lives saved $20 wasted per 
> patient
> HCQ use restricted10,000s of thousands of needless deaths $0 wasted per 
> patient
> 
> Even in the face of impartial information on its effectiveness, the decision 
> is clear.
> 
> https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/04-07-2020-who-discontinues-hydroxychloroquine-and-lopinavir-ritonavir-treatment-arms-for-covid-19
>  
> 
> 
> Why not find out from the WHO or the steering committee itself? Just be 
> prepared to wait as I believe they are somewhat busy.
> 
> But contact them
> 
> Find out what from the WHO? 
> 
> Why they discontinued the treatment arm and why you think they should 
> re-establish it (again btw) to save thousands of lives, with your table and 
> the website. PGC
> 
> 
> 
> It's purely a decision theory problem. They WHO is not infallible (and have 
> demonstrated that recently), the science on HCQs effectiveness is mixed, the 
> science on its safety is clear.
> 
> Given that there is a clearly optimal decision with a higher expected value.
> 
> 
> Your table above presents a false dichotomy.
> 
> It either works or doesn't. That's two options. Unless you can point out a 
> third one that I missed.
> 
> It is a false dichotomy, because it misses the nuance that it might be useful 
> with early administration, but is not a cure, and does not save lives.
> 
> I see. I would count that as "Doesn't work" for the purposes of the table.
>  
>  
> There is no evidence that use of HCQ is effective as a cure for COVID-19.
> 
> "No evidence" is a rather poor way to describe "100% of scientific studies 
> that have investigated it's early administration" (see: https://c19study.com/ 
>  )
> 
> Having lots of studies does not prove that something works. They may not 
> present any evidence at all for efficacy as a cure.
> 
> True, but not a single study is on the side that it doesn't work when given 
> early. So then what should the scientific consensus be? I only say that it 
> remains uncertain.
>  
> 
> It was only ever suggested that it might act prophylactically, or in relief 
> of some early stage symptoms. Decision theory is only useful if you don't 
> misrepresent the facts
> 
> What is misrepresented by the table? Either it works or it doesn't.
> 
> False dichotomy, as explained.
> 
> Take "works" in my table to mean "saves lives".
> 
> That is the problem with your table -- works can mean a multitude of things 
> besides "saves lives". There is, of course, another problem that you have not 
> taken into account. This is that if there is a widespread belief that HCQ 
> cures COVID-19, then many people might take it in this mistaken belief, and 
> consequently fail to take reasonable precautions against infection. This 
> could easily lead to a greatly increased death toll -- many more people get 
> infected than would otherwise be the case, and for none of these does HCQ 
> cure their disease. So there will still be the same proportion of deaths but 
> a greatly increased absolute number. You have no provision in your table for 
> the possibility that

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-08-06 Thread PGC

On Thursday, August 6, 2020 at 11:33:37 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 31 Jul 2020, at 22:06, spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> You really must read up on your history more Bruno, That term comes from 
> the nazis and not I. Here is a 2015 Scientific American article reviewing a 
> book by Philip Ball,  The Struggle for the Soul of Physics.  
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-2-pro-nazi-nobelists-attacked-einstein-s-jewish-science-excerpt1/
>
> I am accusing the politicization of medical science 
>
>
> That has been aggravated by the “marijuana conspiracy”. The book by Jack 
> Herer remains a chef-d’oeuvre of investigation. He cites all its sources, 
> and I have verified all of them. 
>
> The problem is that when we do money with medication, there is an 
> incentive to make people sick, and to avoid efficacious medication. Like 
> the slogan sum up well: a cured patient is a lost client...
>
>
>
>
> and the observations of physicians who have claimed that hydro can be 
> helpful.
>
>
> I am not an expert to really judge this, but I know enough of logic to 
> find mistakes in some critics against Didier Raoult (in France, a 
> well-known pro-hydorxychoroquine). Then I learned that in many countries 
> they are using hydroxychloroquine, with a success which seems better than 
> with remdesivir. None of them are pananacea, and hydroxyhlorquine has to be 
> used with a lot of care, at the benign of the infection, according to 
> Didier Raoult. 
>

With your personal standards of effectiveness and that of guys like Raoult. 
Personally, I find that anything that doesn't satisfy the standards of 
randomized proper placebo controlled trial (even if for ethical reasons, 
you permit respirators etc. as standard of care for placebo) does not 
qualify as effective beyond doubt. If such trials properly conducted and 
controlled were to prove HCQ as effective, I would change my view.

Sure, if people want to take it with these nuances in mind, then no 
problem. What is concerning is the sense of false hope (and cash extracted 
from patients from drug makers and doctors) in the argumentation that this 
"really" has significant or sufficient effectiveness, when such trials are 
not completed as of today to my knowledge and people remain largely unaware 
of the nuances/degrees of effectiveness. In this kind of uninformed, 
hysterical environment, the argument can be made that Raoult is acting 
irresponsibly, as people are largely unable to differentiate on 
effectiveness and he uses his expert status to advance what is still a 
personal view until arguably higher standards of trials/effectiveness prove 
or disprove the claim. PGC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/79488e75-1598-4a56-a69a-bf2cd269b2a2o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sharpiegate


> On 1 Aug 2020, at 02:37, PGC  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 2:26:40 AM UTC+2, Jason wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:20 PM PGC > 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 1:12:49 AM UTC+2, Jason wrote:
> There have been 65 studies on HCQ. Of all the tests that looked at giving it 
> early in the disease, or prophylactically, they showed HCQ was beneficial. 
> This site summarizes them all: https://c19study.com/ 
> 
> The only studies that have shown HCQ to be ineffective are those where it is 
> given late in the disease progression (when the disease shifts from the viral 
> replication phase to an immune system dysregulation phase 
> 
>  (see page 2)). Even then, 61% of studies have shown some effectiveness even 
> when it is given late.
> 
> Given the well-established safety 
>  
> record of HCQ, this is the dilemma we face:
> 
> HCQ works HCQ doesn't work
> HCQ widely dispensed  10,000s of thousands of lives saved $20 wasted per 
> patient
> HCQ use restricted10,000s of thousands of needless deaths $0 wasted per 
> patient
> 
> Even in the face of impartial information on its effectiveness, the decision 
> is clear.
> 
> https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/04-07-2020-who-discontinues-hydroxychloroquine-and-lopinavir-ritonavir-treatment-arms-for-covid-19
>  
> 
> 
> Why not find out from the WHO or the steering committee itself? Just be 
> prepared to wait as I believe they are somewhat busy.
> 
> But contact them
> 
> Find out what from the WHO? 
> 
> Why they discontinued the treatment arm and why you think they should 
> re-establish it (again btw) to save thousands of lives, with your table and 
> the website. PGC

You assume that Trump want save life. But apparently, Hard Kuchner did organise 
a national testing plan, and this rather early, like in many countries. Then, 
according to some source (I will search them again if interested) Trump and its 
acolytes have developed the belief that the virus spread mainly in the dem 
states, and Trump would have decided to not implement the testing, as he would 
have thought that he would benefit from this in the election.  Maybe Trump 
defended HDC because it does not cure (?!?).

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syyJc7jPDM0

To be sure the WH denies this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DELwoWljyx0

Trump is a member of the international prohibitionist club: health is the last 
of their concerns.

Bruno



> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1030b5a6-b100-4377-b2c1-fbbbc28cc3cfo%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8324B67E-8AA5-4F59-9A30-EC71957F6D73%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sharpiegate


> On 31 Jul 2020, at 22:06, spudboy100 via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> You really must read up on your history more Bruno, That term comes from the 
> nazis and not I. Here is a 2015 Scientific American article reviewing a book 
> by Philip Ball,  The Struggle for the Soul of Physics. 
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-2-pro-nazi-nobelists-attacked-einstein-s-jewish-science-excerpt1/
>  
> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-2-pro-nazi-nobelists-attacked-einstein-s-jewish-science-excerpt1/>
> 
> I am accusing the politicization of medical science

That has been aggravated by the “marijuana conspiracy”. The book by Jack Herer 
remains a chef-d’oeuvre of investigation. He cites all its sources, and I have 
verified all of them. 

The problem is that when we do money with medication, there is an incentive to 
make people sick, and to avoid efficacious medication. Like the slogan sum up 
well: a cured patient is a lost client...




> and the observations of physicians who have claimed that hydro can be helpful.

I am not an expert to really judge this, but I know enough of logic to find 
mistakes in some critics against Didier Raoult (in France, a well-known 
pro-hydorxychoroquine). Then I learned that in many countries they are using 
hydroxychloroquine, with a success which seems better than with remdesivir. 
None of them are pananacea, and hydroxyhlorquine has to be used with a lot of 
care, at the benign of the infection, according to Didier Raoult. 




> I  have no opposition to anything that can help, whether Donald Trump likes 
> it or not?

OK?




> The opposition here is more concerned with defeating the president in the 
> election, blaming him for democrat arson and looting, so as to secure the 
> election for their leaders, Kamala Harris, the real presidential candidate, 
> and Joe Biden, their figurehead. Thus, if orange dude recommended aspirin as 
> a blood thinner for suspected heart attacks, those here, would oppose it 
> vehemently.

It is not a good strategy. 

At the same time, I understand the urge to get rid of Trump, Barr, Pompeo, 
McConnell … None of those people defend any Republican ideas, and they lie all 
the times, especially Barr, … It really look like all bandits side with Trump, 
so, optimistically, Trump’s possible (hopefully) defeat might be a quite 
positive events. After, we will have to deal with the extreme left, which is as 
grave if not graver than the extreme right…

Bruno






> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Marchal 
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Fri, Jul 31, 2020 9:30 am
> Subject: Re: Sharpiegate
> 
> 
>> On 30 Jul 2020, at 20:17, spudboy100 via Everything List 
>> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Actually it is a summary. The conclusion is that Hydro can be efficacious is 
>> 50-70% of the cases. This is now a time AAAS Science's opinion aside (pharma 
>> funded?) when most experts regarding covid have been proven wrong, and 
>> perhaps deliberately on their part. Politicized science is not science at 
>> all.
> 
> Right. Like politicised religion is not religion at all. In fact those get 
> transformed, when politicised, into tools to prevent researches in the 
> domain, and combat any concurrent ideas.
> 
> 
>> Whether it's Jewish Physics, or Lysenko's biology,
> 
> Lyssenko’s biology was state authoritarian biology. It has led to the death 
> of 30 millions of people in the USSR (the biggest famine due to "human 
> error”).
> 
> I have no clue what you mean by Jewish Physics. Einstein?
> 
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
>> or even threats of climate collapse. To quote Galileo, It Moves, Still. Its 
>> either true or not? Who is ever president notwithstanding.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Lawrence Crowell > <mailto:goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com>>
>> To: Everything List > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>>
>> Sent: Thu, Jul 30, 2020 7:57 am
>> Subject: Re: Sharpiegate
>> 
>> On Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 7:04:07 PM UTC-5 spudb...@aol.com 
>> <http://aol.com/> wrote:
>> Again, regarding, Hydroxychloroquine, please refute:  
>> 
>> https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study 
>> <https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study>
>> 
>> https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext 
>> <https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext>
>> 
>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7330574/ 
>> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7330574/>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I am no

Re: Sharpiegate


> On 31 Jul 2020, at 16:20, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 9:19 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> >  it is invalid to say that A is false because P asserts it
> 
> There is more to intelligence than just deduction, there is also induction 
> which is at least as powerful. If everything P has asserted in the past has 
> been shown to be false and now P asserts A then you can conclude that A is 
> probably, although not certainly, also false. That's why most intelligent 
> people wouldn't accept medical advice from somebody who in the past has 
> asserted that vaccines are made from space alien sperm to make people less 
> religious, and ovarian cysts are caused by woman dreaming about having sex 
> with deamons. But Trump is fine with taking such advice because Trump is not 
> intelligent.

My point was logical, and I agree it is wise to not follow an advice by someone 
who has lied, … even just once, actually.

Here we do have a problem which is that the FDA has lied a lot also since long, 
so we are a bit in between the pest and the cholera.

Bruno








> 
> John K Clark
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv20eCO7JVkP%3DtxybWGkiMzQ53xeYBWgnHhPFGiRCuD58g%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/E74D8583-3AB5-4193-AF44-8250FFB873E7%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-08-01 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

Myself as well Jason. The pharmacy board appeared to be a political response 
here, rather than medical. If Hydro doesn't help it doesn't, and if it does it 
does. 

-Original Message-
From: Jason Resch 
To: spudboy...@aol.com
Cc: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Sat, Aug 1, 2020 5:36 pm
Subject: Re: Sharpiegate

I agree it is unfortunate that what should purely be a medical/risk management 
decision has become politicized.

Fortunately the Ohio's governor intervened to make the pharmacy board reversed 
their ban. Whether any particular treatment is effective or not, the decision 
must remain one made by the patient and their doctor, in my opinion.
Jason

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 3:52 PM  wrote:

Yeah Jason, it's shouldn't be about ideology, but results. However, human 
nature is what it is, and often "faith" overwhelms facts. If someone hates 
Orange Man enough, and see Covid as something secondary or tertiary, they won't 
care. Even Scott Adams (Dilbert) was vehemently contemptuous of 
Hydroxychloroquine as useless or damaging, and spoke against it as of three 
weeks ago. Adams, changed his opinion based on new studies. Adams is not a 
physician or a scientist but always uses their papers and voices in his 
analysis. 12 min video follows. Adams is big league in math and science, but 
was an investment banker as first background. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCRGYtMgn4c

-Original Message-
From: Jason Resch 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Fri, Jul 31, 2020 7:12 pm
Subject: Re: Sharpiegate

There have been 65 studies on HCQ. Of all the tests that looked at giving it 
early in the disease, or prophylactically, they showed HCQ was beneficial. This 
site summarizes them all: https://c19study.com/
The only studies that have shown HCQ to be ineffective are those where it is 
given late in the disease progression (when the disease shifts from the viral 
replication phase to an immune system dysregulation phase (see page 2)). Even 
then, 61% of studies have shown some effectiveness even when it is given late.
Given the well-established safety record of HCQ, this is the dilemma we face:

|  | HCQ works | HCQ doesn't work |
| HCQ widely dispensed | 10,000s of thousands of lives saved | $20 wasted per 
patient |
| HCQ use restricted | 10,000s of thousands of needless deaths | $0 wasted per 
patient |

Even in the face of impartial information on its effectiveness, the decision is 
clear.
Jason

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 5:52 PM PGC  wrote:

On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 3:58:02 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 30 Jul 2020, at 22:59, PGC  wrote:

On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 10:52:09 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote:

 On 7/30/2020 1:02 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

 Refute this Telmo- 
https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study 
  https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext 
  One viewer here indicated this was not a study-but it is a study indeed 
concluding the benefits of Hydro.  
  Now what do I think? If it works it works, and if it doesn't it doesn't.   

 That's just false.  Some things work on some infections in some people using 
some protocols of care.  

Agreed. Ongoing large scale international clinical trials are what they are. 
Nobody claims that they or the papers in their wake are perfect, but to pretend 
that a few tiny studies are "in need of refutation" or that the world's 
epidemiological community is orchestrating conspiracies without evidence like 
some on Twitter and on social media tend to peddle, is naive or evidence of the 
effectivity of disinformation, not evidence of effectivity of medication. 

OK in principle. But we can also look at the map of the evolution of the virus 
in country using it and not using it. My own country has used it, France has 
used it, then change its mind, a number of time.We can also take into account 
that the US FDA has lied about “not evidence of effectivity of cannabis” since 
about a century. It is only very recently that it has admit its effectivity for 
some disease in some public way (it accepted it more discreetly for some rich 
patients since long though).

But if Telmo and/or Mitch need, they can always get in touch with their closest 
epidemiologists/docs and ask for the data and emails, and inform the 
coordinating committee of their findings and worries, citing who they wish. 
While data of the majority of ongoing trials and appropriate epidemiological 
discourse may not be accessible on the net or published ("ongoing" being 
somewhat relevant...), it isn't classified or anything. PGC

I have done that a little bit, but it is hard to interpret. A biologist friend 
of mine seems to believe that the Canadian studies showing that 
Hydroxychoroquine is better than Remdesevir is rather serious. The amount of 
money hidden in the pharmaceutical debate is so big that the misinformation is 
perpetual. But you are right: it is not classified, and

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-08-01 Thread Jason Resch

I agree it is unfortunate that what should purely be a medical/risk
management decision has become politicized.

Fortunately the Ohio's governor intervened to make the pharmacy board reversed
their ban
<https://www.wkbn.com/news/coronavirus/ohio-board-of-pharmacy-withdraws-hydroxychloroquine-ruling-after-gov-dewines-request/>.
Whether any particular treatment is effective or not, the decision must
remain one made by the patient and their doctor, in my opinion.

Jason

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 3:52 PM  wrote:

> Yeah Jason, it's shouldn't be about ideology, but results. However, human
> nature is what it is, and often "faith" overwhelms facts. If someone hates
> Orange Man enough, and see Covid as something secondary or tertiary, they
> won't care. Even Scott Adams (Dilbert) was vehemently contemptuous of
> Hydroxychloroquine as useless or damaging, and spoke against it as of three
> weeks ago. Adams, changed his opinion based on new studies. Adams is not a
> physician or a scientist but always uses their papers and voices in his
> analysis. 12 min video follows. Adams is big league in math and science,
> but was an investment banker as first background.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCRGYtMgn4c
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Resch 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Fri, Jul 31, 2020 7:12 pm
> Subject: Re: Sharpiegate
>
> There have been 65 studies on HCQ. Of all the tests that looked at giving
> it early in the disease, or prophylactically, they showed HCQ was
> beneficial. This site summarizes them all: https://c19study.com/
>
> The only studies that have shown HCQ to be ineffective are those where it
> is given late in the disease progression (when the disease shifts from the 
> viral
> replication phase to an immune system dysregulation phase
> <https://www.evms.edu/media/evms_public/departments/internal_medicine/EVMS_Critical_Care_COVID-19_Protocol.pdf>
> (see page 2)). Even then, 61% of studies have shown some effectiveness even
> when it is given late.
>
> Given the well-established safety
> <https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/resources/pdf/fsp/drugs/Hydroxychloroquine.pdf>
> record of HCQ, this is the dilemma we face:
>
> HCQ works HCQ doesn't work
> HCQ widely dispensed 10,000s of thousands of lives saved $20 wasted per
> patient
> HCQ use restricted 10,000s of thousands of needless deaths $0 wasted per
> patient
>
> Even in the face of impartial information on its effectiveness, the
> decision is clear.
>
> Jason
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 5:52 PM PGC  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 3:58:02 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 30 Jul 2020, at 22:59, PGC  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 10:52:09 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2020 1:02 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
>
> Refute this Telmo-
> https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study
>
> https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext
>
> One viewer here indicated this was not a study-but it is a study indeed
> concluding the benefits of Hydro.
>
> Now what do I think? If it works it works, and if it doesn't it doesn't.
>
>
> That's just false.  Some things work on some infections in some people
> using some protocols of care.
>
>
> Agreed. Ongoing large scale international clinical trials are what they
> are. Nobody claims that they or the papers in their wake are perfect, but
> to pretend that a few tiny studies are "in need of refutation" or that the
> world's epidemiological community is orchestrating conspiracies without
> evidence like some on Twitter and on social media tend to peddle, is naive
> or evidence of the effectivity of disinformation, *not evidence of
> effectivity of medication*.
>
>
> OK in principle. But we can also look at the map of the evolution of the
> virus in country using it and not using it. My own country has used it,
> France has used it, then change its mind, a number of time.
> We can also take into account that the US FDA has lied about “not evidence
> of effectivity of cannabis” since about a century. It is only very recently
> that it has admit its effectivity for some disease in some public way (it
> accepted it more discreetly for some rich patients since long though).
>
>
>
> But if Telmo and/or Mitch need, they can always get in touch with their
> closest epidemiologists/docs and ask for the data and emails, and inform
> the coordinating committee of their findings and worries, citing who they
> wish. While data of the majority of ongoing trials and appropriate
> epidemiological discourse may not be accessible on the net or published
> ("ongoi

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-08-01 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

Yeah Jason, it's shouldn't be about ideology, but results. However, human 
nature is what it is, and often "faith" overwhelms facts. If someone hates 
Orange Man enough, and see Covid as something secondary or tertiary, they won't 
care. Even Scott Adams (Dilbert) was vehemently contemptuous of 
Hydroxychloroquine as useless or damaging, and spoke against it as of three 
weeks ago. Adams, changed his opinion based on new studies. Adams is not a 
physician or a scientist but always uses their papers and voices in his 
analysis. 12 min video follows. Adams is big league in math and science, but 
was an investment banker as first background. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCRGYtMgn4c


-Original Message-
From: Jason Resch 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Fri, Jul 31, 2020 7:12 pm
Subject: Re: Sharpiegate

There have been 65 studies on HCQ. Of all the tests that looked at giving it 
early in the disease, or prophylactically, they showed HCQ was beneficial. This 
site summarizes them all: https://c19study.com/
The only studies that have shown HCQ to be ineffective are those where it is 
given late in the disease progression (when the disease shifts from the viral 
replication phase to an immune system dysregulation phase (see page 2)). Even 
then, 61% of studies have shown some effectiveness even when it is given late.
Given the well-established safety record of HCQ, this is the dilemma we face:

|  | HCQ works | HCQ doesn't work |
| HCQ widely dispensed | 10,000s of thousands of lives saved | $20 wasted per 
patient |
| HCQ use restricted | 10,000s of thousands of needless deaths | $0 wasted per 
patient |


Even in the face of impartial information on its effectiveness, the decision is 
clear.
Jason


On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 5:52 PM PGC  wrote:



On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 3:58:02 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 30 Jul 2020, at 22:59, PGC  wrote:


On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 10:52:09 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote:

 
 
 On 7/30/2020 1:02 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
  
 Refute this Telmo- 
https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study 
  https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext 
  One viewer here indicated this was not a study-but it is a study indeed 
concluding the benefits of Hydro.  
  Now what do I think? If it works it works, and if it doesn't it doesn't.   
 
 That's just false.  Some things work on some infections in some people using 
some protocols of care.  


Agreed. Ongoing large scale international clinical trials are what they are. 
Nobody claims that they or the papers in their wake are perfect, but to pretend 
that a few tiny studies are "in need of refutation" or that the world's 
epidemiological community is orchestrating conspiracies without evidence like 
some on Twitter and on social media tend to peddle, is naive or evidence of the 
effectivity of disinformation, not evidence of effectivity of medication. 

OK in principle. But we can also look at the map of the evolution of the virus 
in country using it and not using it. My own country has used it, France has 
used it, then change its mind, a number of time.We can also take into account 
that the US FDA has lied about “not evidence of effectivity of cannabis” since 
about a century. It is only very recently that it has admit its effectivity for 
some disease in some public way (it accepted it more discreetly for some rich 
patients since long though).



But if Telmo and/or Mitch need, they can always get in touch with their closest 
epidemiologists/docs and ask for the data and emails, and inform the 
coordinating committee of their findings and worries, citing who they wish. 
While data of the majority of ongoing trials and appropriate epidemiological 
discourse may not be accessible on the net or published ("ongoing" being 
somewhat relevant...), it isn't classified or anything. PGC


I have done that a little bit, but it is hard to interpret. A biologist friend 
of mine seems to believe that the Canadian studies showing that 
Hydroxychoroquine is better than Remdesevir is rather serious. The amount of 
money hidden in the pharmaceutical debate is so big that the misinformation is 
perpetual. But you are right: it is not classified, and even just googling on 
the net shows that hydroxychloroquine, when used convenably, *might* be better 
than some other medication, and perhaps cannabis is still better (as more and 
more studies seem to show).

If you, Mitch, Telmo, your biologist friend, or Trump have data concerning 
effectiveness of HCQ with significant sample sizes in randomized 
placebo-controlled trials, and can demonstrate that said trials are free of 
epidemiologists' long lists of possible issues/bias, then the only thing 
stopping you guys from stepping forward and making world history as 
non-professionals is your own minds. PGC


  -- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everythi

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-08-01 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

Your people didn't try it with zinc (long time respiratory treatment) which was 
the Zelenko method. I don't care about whether the Donald (new term for the 
American leader), approves or not, but rather does the trio of hydro + zinc + 
arithro work together to rapidly alleviate symptoms that cause mortality? If 
anything else works, faster please. The opposition to hydro is driven by 
ideology, and never medical science. Sans, zinc, hydro may be useless. Because 
my enemy built and used MP-40 submachine guns, would not cause me from using 
one, as needed. 


-Original Message-
From: PGC 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Fri, Jul 31, 2020 6:52 pm
Subject: Re: Sharpiegate



On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 3:58:02 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 30 Jul 2020, at 22:59, PGC  wrote:


On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 10:52:09 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote:

 
 
 On 7/30/2020 1:02 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
  
 Refute this Telmo- https://www.henryford.com/ news/2020/07/hydro-treatment- 
study 
  https://www.ijidonline.com/ article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/ fulltext 
  One viewer here indicated this was not a study-but it is a study indeed 
concluding the benefits of Hydro.  
  Now what do I think? If it works it works, and if it doesn't it doesn't.   
 
 That's just false.  Some things work on some infections in some people using 
some protocols of care.  


Agreed. Ongoing large scale international clinical trials are what they are. 
Nobody claims that they or the papers in their wake are perfect, but to pretend 
that a few tiny studies are "in need of refutation" or that the world's 
epidemiological community is orchestrating conspiracies without evidence like 
some on Twitter and on social media tend to peddle, is naive or evidence of the 
effectivity of disinformation, not evidence of effectivity of medication. 

OK in principle. But we can also look at the map of the evolution of the virus 
in country using it and not using it. My own country has used it, France has 
used it, then change its mind, a number of time.We can also take into account 
that the US FDA has lied about “not evidence of effectivity of cannabis” since 
about a century. It is only very recently that it has admit its effectivity for 
some disease in some public way (it accepted it more discreetly for some rich 
patients since long though).



But if Telmo and/or Mitch need, they can always get in touch with their closest 
epidemiologists/docs and ask for the data and emails, and inform the 
coordinating committee of their findings and worries, citing who they wish. 
While data of the majority of ongoing trials and appropriate epidemiological 
discourse may not be accessible on the net or published ("ongoing" being 
somewhat relevant...), it isn't classified or anything. PGC


I have done that a little bit, but it is hard to interpret. A biologist friend 
of mine seems to believe that the Canadian studies showing that 
Hydroxychoroquine is better than Remdesevir is rather serious. The amount of 
money hidden in the pharmaceutical debate is so big that the misinformation is 
perpetual. But you are right: it is not classified, and even just googling on 
the net shows that hydroxychloroquine, when used convenably, *might* be better 
than some other medication, and perhaps cannabis is still better (as more and 
more studies seem to show).

If you, Mitch, Telmo, your biologist friend, or Trump have data concerning 
effectiveness of HCQ with significant sample sizes in randomized 
placebo-controlled trials, and can demonstrate that said trials are free of 
epidemiologists' long lists of possible issues/bias, then the only thing 
stopping you guys from stepping forward and making world history as 
non-professionals is your own minds. PGC


  -- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/84ac1e66-92eb-4cf8-85e7-0f9e74f1c3ceo%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1742807729.218825.1596313645116%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-08-01 Thread Lawrence Crowell

On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 6:12:49 PM UTC-5 Jason wrote:

> There have been 65 studies on HCQ. Of all the tests that looked at giving 
> it early in the disease, or prophylactically, they showed HCQ was 
> beneficial. This site summarizes them all: https://c19study.com/
>
> The only studies that have shown HCQ to be ineffective are those where it 
> is given late in the disease progression (when the disease shifts from the 
> viral 
> replication phase to an immune system dysregulation phase 
> 
>  
> (see page 2)). Even then, 61% of studies have shown some effectiveness even 
> when it is given late.
>
> Given the well-established safety 
>  
> record of HCQ, this is the dilemma we face:
>
> HCQ works HCQ doesn't work
> HCQ widely dispensed 10,000s of thousands of lives saved $20 wasted per 
> patient
> HCQ use restricted 10,000s of thousands of needless deaths $0 wasted per 
> patient
>
> Even in the face of impartial information on its effectiveness, the 
> decision is clear.
>
> Jason
>

Most drug trials and studies of this sort do not assert a counterfactual 
claim of this sort. 

LC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b2ed226f-eaf1-46d7-a4a8-a01299a2a9afn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sharpiegate

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 10:04 PM Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 11:48 AM Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:43 PM Bruce Kellett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 11:25 AM Jason Resch 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:13 PM Bruce Kellett 
 wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 10:49 AM Jason Resch 
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:37 PM PGC  wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 2:26:40 AM UTC+2, Jason wrote:

 On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:20 PM PGC  wrote:

> On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 1:12:49 AM UTC+2, Jason wrote:
>>
>> There have been 65 studies on HCQ. Of all the tests that looked
>> at giving it early in the disease, or prophylactically, they showed 
>> HCQ was
>> beneficial. This site summarizes them all: https://c19study.com/
>>
>> The only studies that have shown HCQ to be ineffective are those
>> where it is given late in the disease progression (when the disease 
>> shifts
>> from the viral replication phase to an immune system
>> dysregulation phase
>> 
>> (see page 2)). Even then, 61% of studies have shown some 
>> effectiveness even
>> when it is given late.
>>
>> Given the well-established safety
>> 
>> record of HCQ, this is the dilemma we face:
>>
>> HCQ works HCQ doesn't work
>> HCQ widely dispensed 10,000s of thousands of lives saved $20
>> wasted per patient
>> HCQ use restricted 10,000s of thousands of needless deaths $0
>> wasted per patient
>>
>> Even in the face of impartial information on its effectiveness,
>> the decision is clear.
>>
>
>
> https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/04-07-2020-who-discontinues-hydroxychloroquine-and-lopinavir-ritonavir-treatment-arms-for-covid-19
>
> Why not find out from the WHO or the steering committee itself?
> Just be prepared to wait as I believe they are somewhat busy.
>
> But contact them
>

 Find out what from the WHO?

>>>
>>> Why they discontinued the treatment arm and why you think they
>>> should re-establish it (again btw) to save thousands of lives, with your
>>> table and the website. PGC
>>>

>>>
>> It's purely a decision theory problem. They WHO is not infallible
>> (and have demonstrated that recently), the science on HCQs effectiveness 
>> is
>> mixed, the science on its safety is clear.
>>
>> Given that there is a clearly optimal decision with a higher expected
>> value.
>>
>
>
> Your table above presents a false dichotomy.
>

 It either works or doesn't. That's two options. Unless you can point
 out a third one that I missed.

>>>
>>> It is a false dichotomy, because it misses the nuance that it might be
>>> useful with early administration, but is not a cure, and does not save
>>> lives.
>>>
>>
>> I see. I would count that as "Doesn't work" for the purposes of the table.
>>
>>
>>>

> There is no evidence that use of HCQ is effective as a cure for
> COVID-19.
>

 "No evidence" is a rather poor way to describe "*100% of scientific
 studies that have investigated it's early administration*" (see:
 https://c19study.com/ )

>>>
>>> Having lots of studies does not prove that something works. They may not
>>> present any evidence at all for efficacy as a cure.
>>>
>>
>> True, but not a single study is on the side that it doesn't work when
>> given early. So then what should the scientific consensus be? I only say
>> that it remains uncertain.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> It was only ever suggested that it might act prophylactically, or in
> relief of some early stage symptoms. Decision theory is only useful if you
> don't misrepresent the facts
>

 What is misrepresented by the table? Either it works or it doesn't.

>>>
>>> False dichotomy, as explained.
>>>
>>
>> Take "works" in my table to mean "saves lives".
>>
>
> That is the problem with your table -- works can mean a multitude of
> things besides "saves lives". There is, of course, another problem that you
> have not taken into account. This is that if there is a widespread belief
> that HCQ cures COVID-19, then many people might take it in this mistaken
> belief, and consequently fail to take reasonable precautions against
> infection. This could easily lead to a greatly increased death toll -- many
> more people get infected than would otherwise be the case, and for none of
> these does HCQ cure their

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-07-31 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 11:48 AM Jason Resch  wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:43 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 11:25 AM Jason Resch  wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:13 PM Bruce Kellett 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 10:49 AM Jason Resch 
 wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:37 PM PGC  wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 2:26:40 AM UTC+2, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:20 PM PGC  wrote:
>>>
 On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 1:12:49 AM UTC+2, Jason wrote:
>
> There have been 65 studies on HCQ. Of all the tests that looked at
> giving it early in the disease, or prophylactically, they showed HCQ 
> was
> beneficial. This site summarizes them all: https://c19study.com/
>
> The only studies that have shown HCQ to be ineffective are those
> where it is given late in the disease progression (when the disease 
> shifts
> from the viral replication phase to an immune system
> dysregulation phase
> 
> (see page 2)). Even then, 61% of studies have shown some 
> effectiveness even
> when it is given late.
>
> Given the well-established safety
> 
> record of HCQ, this is the dilemma we face:
>
> HCQ works HCQ doesn't work
> HCQ widely dispensed 10,000s of thousands of lives saved $20
> wasted per patient
> HCQ use restricted 10,000s of thousands of needless deaths $0
> wasted per patient
>
> Even in the face of impartial information on its effectiveness,
> the decision is clear.
>


 https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/04-07-2020-who-discontinues-hydroxychloroquine-and-lopinavir-ritonavir-treatment-arms-for-covid-19

 Why not find out from the WHO or the steering committee itself?
 Just be prepared to wait as I believe they are somewhat busy.

 But contact them

>>>
>>> Find out what from the WHO?
>>>
>>
>> Why they discontinued the treatment arm and why you think they should
>> re-establish it (again btw) to save thousands of lives, with your table 
>> and
>> the website. PGC
>>
>>>
>>
> It's purely a decision theory problem. They WHO is not infallible (and
> have demonstrated that recently), the science on HCQs effectiveness is
> mixed, the science on its safety is clear.
>
> Given that there is a clearly optimal decision with a higher expected
> value.
>


 Your table above presents a false dichotomy.

>>>
>>> It either works or doesn't. That's two options. Unless you can point out
>>> a third one that I missed.
>>>
>>
>> It is a false dichotomy, because it misses the nuance that it might be
>> useful with early administration, but is not a cure, and does not save
>> lives.
>>
>
> I see. I would count that as "Doesn't work" for the purposes of the table.
>
>
>>
>>>
 There is no evidence that use of HCQ is effective as a cure for
 COVID-19.

>>>
>>> "No evidence" is a rather poor way to describe "*100% of scientific
>>> studies that have investigated it's early administration*" (see:
>>> https://c19study.com/ )
>>>
>>
>> Having lots of studies does not prove that something works. They may not
>> present any evidence at all for efficacy as a cure.
>>
>
> True, but not a single study is on the side that it doesn't work when
> given early. So then what should the scientific consensus be? I only say
> that it remains uncertain.
>
>
>>
>> It was only ever suggested that it might act prophylactically, or in
 relief of some early stage symptoms. Decision theory is only useful if you
 don't misrepresent the facts

>>>
>>> What is misrepresented by the table? Either it works or it doesn't.
>>>
>>
>> False dichotomy, as explained.
>>
>
> Take "works" in my table to mean "saves lives".
>

That is the problem with your table -- works can mean a multitude of things
besides "saves lives". There is, of course, another problem that you have
not taken into account. This is that if there is a widespread belief that
HCQ cures COVID-19, then many people might take it in this mistaken belief,
and consequently fail to take reasonable precautions against infection.
This could easily lead to a greatly increased death toll -- many more
people get infected than would otherwise be the case, and for none of these
does HCQ cure their disease. So there will still be the same proportion of
deaths but a greatly increased absolute number. You have no provision in
your table for the possibility that mistaken beliefs might actually cost
lives.

Re: Sharpiegate

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 9:35 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 7/31/2020 5:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:37 PM PGC  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 2:26:40 AM UTC+2, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:20 PM PGC  wrote:
>>>


 On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 1:12:49 AM UTC+2, Jason wrote:
>
> There have been 65 studies on HCQ. Of all the tests that looked at
> giving it early in the disease, or prophylactically, they showed HCQ was
> beneficial. This site summarizes them all: https://c19study.com/
>
> The only studies that have shown HCQ to be ineffective are those where
> it is given late in the disease progression (when the disease shifts from
> the viral replication phase to an immune system dysregulation phase
> 
> (see page 2)). Even then, 61% of studies have shown some effectiveness 
> even
> when it is given late.
>
> Given the well-established safety
> 
> record of HCQ, this is the dilemma we face:
>
>
> HCQ works HCQ doesn't work
> HCQ widely dispensed 10,000s of thousands of lives saved $20 wasted
> per patient
> HCQ use restricted 10,000s of thousands of needless deaths $0 wasted
> per patient
>
> Even in the face of impartial information on its effectiveness, the
> decision is clear.
>


 https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/04-07-2020-who-discontinues-hydroxychloroquine-and-lopinavir-ritonavir-treatment-arms-for-covid-19

 Why not find out from the WHO or the steering committee itself? Just be
 prepared to wait as I believe they are somewhat busy.

 But contact them

>>>
>>> Find out what from the WHO?
>>>
>>
>> Why they discontinued the treatment arm and why you think they should
>> re-establish it (again btw) to save thousands of lives, with your table and
>> the website. PGC
>>
>>>
>>
> It's purely a decision theory problem. They WHO is not infallible (and
> have demonstrated that recently), the science on HCQs effectiveness is
> mixed, the science on its safety is clear.
>
> Given that there is a clearly optimal decision with a higher expected
> value.
>
>
> No, there is not.  The trials show some improvement for ill persons.
>

One study found early use reduced hospitalizations by 84% deaths by 80%.
That's hardly insignificant.

What's the downside risk, as you perceive it?


> It doesn't show there would be no harm in using it as a preventative in
> well persons.
>

That has been established by the 60 year history of use by tens of millions
of people. See the CDC link I gave, it's safe even for pregnant and nursing
mothers.

Jason


>
> Brent
>
>
> The very link you provided says they only cancelled only the late stage
> testing. They are continuing early and prophylactic use tests.
>
> "This decision applies only to the conduct of the Solidarity trial in
> hospitalized patients and does not affect the possible evaluation in other
> studies of hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir/ritonavir in non-hospitalized
> patients or as pre- or post-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19."
>
>
> Jason
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUiQtZttiHSVszjVzUWyjZf60wUTPJwS8AYVFytgjj-gYQ%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/50c6dc2f-23a7-dad7-d47b-2fa503cbc348%40verizon.net
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhzgvwrx1xMWp7NGDgogDZCCLSR5bq88Ro6G6_wrxKfnQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-07-31 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 7/31/2020 5:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:37 PM PGC > wrote:

On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 2:26:40 AM UTC+2, Jason wrote:

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:20 PM PGC wrote:

On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 1:12:49 AM UTC+2, Jason wrote:

There have been 65 studies on HCQ. Of all the tests
that looked at giving it early in the disease, or
prophylactically, they showed HCQ was beneficial. This
site summarizes them all: https://c19study.com/

The only studies that have shown HCQ to be ineffective
are those where it is given late in the disease
progression (when the disease shifts from the viral
replication phase to an immune system dysregulation
phase

(see page 2)). Even then, 61% of studies have shown
some effectiveness even when it is given late.

Given the well-established safety

record of HCQ, this is the dilemma we face:

HCQ works HCQ doesn't work
HCQ widely dispensed10,000s of thousands of lives
saved $20 wasted per patient
HCQ use restricted 10,000s of thousands of needless
deaths $0 wasted per patient

Even in the face of impartial information on its
effectiveness, the decision is clear.

https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/04-07-2020-who-discontinues-hydroxychloroquine-and-lopinavir-ritonavir-treatment-arms-for-covid-19

Why not find out from the WHO or the steering committee
itself? Just be prepared to wait as I believe they are
somewhat busy.

But contact them

Find out what from the WHO?

Why they discontinued the treatment arm and why you think they
should re-establish it (again btw) to save thousands of lives,
with your table and the website. PGC

It's purely a decision theory problem. They WHO is not infallible (and
have demonstrated that recently), the science on HCQs effectiveness is
mixed, the science on its safety is clear.

Given that there is a clearly optimal decision with a higher expected
value.

No, there is not. The trials show some improvement for ill persons. It
doesn't show there would be no harm in using it as a preventative in
well persons.

Brent

The very link you provided says they only cancelled only the late
stage testing. They are continuing early and prophylactic use tests.

"This decision applies only to the conduct of the Solidarity trial
in hospitalized patients and does not affect the possible
evaluation in other studies of hydroxychloroquine or
lopinavir/ritonavir in non-hospitalized patients or as pre- or
post-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19."

Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUiQtZttiHSVszjVzUWyjZf60wUTPJwS8AYVFytgjj-gYQ%40mail.gmail.com
.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/50c6dc2f-23a7-dad7-d47b-2fa503cbc348%40verizon.net.

Re: Sharpiegate

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:43 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 11:25 AM Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:13 PM Bruce Kellett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 10:49 AM Jason Resch 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:37 PM PGC  wrote:

> On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 2:26:40 AM UTC+2, Jason wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:20 PM PGC  wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 1:12:49 AM UTC+2, Jason wrote:

 There have been 65 studies on HCQ. Of all the tests that looked at
 giving it early in the disease, or prophylactically, they showed HCQ 
 was
 beneficial. This site summarizes them all: https://c19study.com/

 The only studies that have shown HCQ to be ineffective are those
 where it is given late in the disease progression (when the disease 
 shifts
 from the viral replication phase to an immune system dysregulation
 phase
 
 (see page 2)). Even then, 61% of studies have shown some effectiveness 
 even
 when it is given late.

 Given the well-established safety
 
 record of HCQ, this is the dilemma we face:

 HCQ works HCQ doesn't work
 HCQ widely dispensed 10,000s of thousands of lives saved $20
 wasted per patient
 HCQ use restricted 10,000s of thousands of needless deaths $0
 wasted per patient

 Even in the face of impartial information on its effectiveness, the
 decision is clear.

>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/04-07-2020-who-discontinues-hydroxychloroquine-and-lopinavir-ritonavir-treatment-arms-for-covid-19
>>>
>>> Why not find out from the WHO or the steering committee itself? Just
>>> be prepared to wait as I believe they are somewhat busy.
>>>
>>> But contact them
>>>
>>
>> Find out what from the WHO?
>>
>
> Why they discontinued the treatment arm and why you think they should
> re-establish it (again btw) to save thousands of lives, with your table 
> and
> the website. PGC
>
>>
>
 It's purely a decision theory problem. They WHO is not infallible (and
 have demonstrated that recently), the science on HCQs effectiveness is
 mixed, the science on its safety is clear.

 Given that there is a clearly optimal decision with a higher expected
 value.

>>>
>>>
>>> Your table above presents a false dichotomy.
>>>
>>
>> It either works or doesn't. That's two options. Unless you can point out
>> a third one that I missed.
>>
>
> It is a false dichotomy, because it misses the nuance that it might be
> useful with early administration, but is not a cure, and does not save
> lives.
>

I see. I would count that as "Doesn't work" for the purposes of the table.


>
>>
>>> There is no evidence that use of HCQ is effective as a cure for
>>> COVID-19.
>>>
>>
>> "No evidence" is a rather poor way to describe "*100% of scientific
>> studies that have investigated it's early administration*" (see:
>> https://c19study.com/ )
>>
>
> Having lots of studies does not prove that something works. They may not
> present any evidence at all for efficacy as a cure.
>

True, but not a single study is on the side that it doesn't work when given
early. So then what should the scientific consensus be? I only say that it
remains uncertain.


>
> It was only ever suggested that it might act prophylactically, or in
>>> relief of some early stage symptoms. Decision theory is only useful if you
>>> don't misrepresent the facts
>>>
>>
>> What is misrepresented by the table? Either it works or it doesn't.
>>
>
> False dichotomy, as explained.
>

Take "works" in my table to mean "saves lives".   Or if you want to
redefine works as minimizing symptoms, then you can make another table that
shows tens of thousands of people who would experience reduced symptoms.
The conclusion is the same.

Jason


>
> Bruce
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQF8zgJS0D-a6BsHjm1j3xWs8voQjpDAcCvgAMpqe8Gvw%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-07-31 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 11:25 AM Jason Resch  wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:13 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 10:49 AM Jason Resch  wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:37 PM PGC  wrote:
>>>
 On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 2:26:40 AM UTC+2, Jason wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:20 PM PGC  wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 1:12:49 AM UTC+2, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>> There have been 65 studies on HCQ. Of all the tests that looked at
>>> giving it early in the disease, or prophylactically, they showed HCQ was
>>> beneficial. This site summarizes them all: https://c19study.com/
>>>
>>> The only studies that have shown HCQ to be ineffective are those
>>> where it is given late in the disease progression (when the disease 
>>> shifts
>>> from the viral replication phase to an immune system dysregulation
>>> phase
>>> 
>>> (see page 2)). Even then, 61% of studies have shown some effectiveness 
>>> even
>>> when it is given late.
>>>
>>> Given the well-established safety
>>> 
>>> record of HCQ, this is the dilemma we face:
>>>
>>> HCQ works HCQ doesn't work
>>> HCQ widely dispensed 10,000s of thousands of lives saved $20 wasted
>>> per patient
>>> HCQ use restricted 10,000s of thousands of needless deaths $0
>>> wasted per patient
>>>
>>> Even in the face of impartial information on its effectiveness, the
>>> decision is clear.
>>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/04-07-2020-who-discontinues-hydroxychloroquine-and-lopinavir-ritonavir-treatment-arms-for-covid-19
>>
>> Why not find out from the WHO or the steering committee itself? Just
>> be prepared to wait as I believe they are somewhat busy.
>>
>> But contact them
>>
>
> Find out what from the WHO?
>

 Why they discontinued the treatment arm and why you think they should
 re-establish it (again btw) to save thousands of lives, with your table and
 the website. PGC

>

>>> It's purely a decision theory problem. They WHO is not infallible (and
>>> have demonstrated that recently), the science on HCQs effectiveness is
>>> mixed, the science on its safety is clear.
>>>
>>> Given that there is a clearly optimal decision with a higher expected
>>> value.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Your table above presents a false dichotomy.
>>
>
> It either works or doesn't. That's two options. Unless you can point out a
> third one that I missed.
>

It is a false dichotomy, because it misses the nuance that it might be
useful with early administration, but is not a cure, and does not save
lives.

>
>
>> There is no evidence that use of HCQ is effective as a cure for COVID-19.
>>
>
> "No evidence" is a rather poor way to describe "*100% of scientific
> studies that have investigated it's early administration*" (see:
> https://c19study.com/ )
>

Having lots of studies does not prove that something works. They may not
present any evidence at all for efficacy as a cure.

It was only ever suggested that it might act prophylactically, or in relief
>> of some early stage symptoms. Decision theory is only useful if you don't
>> misrepresent the facts
>>
>
> What is misrepresented by the table? Either it works or it doesn't.
>

False dichotomy, as explained.

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQF8zgJS0D-a6BsHjm1j3xWs8voQjpDAcCvgAMpqe8Gvw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sharpiegate

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:13 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 10:49 AM Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:37 PM PGC  wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 2:26:40 AM UTC+2, Jason wrote:

 On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:20 PM PGC  wrote:

> On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 1:12:49 AM UTC+2, Jason wrote:
>>
>> There have been 65 studies on HCQ. Of all the tests that looked at
>> giving it early in the disease, or prophylactically, they showed HCQ was
>> beneficial. This site summarizes them all: https://c19study.com/
>>
>> The only studies that have shown HCQ to be ineffective are those
>> where it is given late in the disease progression (when the disease 
>> shifts
>> from the viral replication phase to an immune system dysregulation
>> phase
>> 
>> (see page 2)). Even then, 61% of studies have shown some effectiveness 
>> even
>> when it is given late.
>>
>> Given the well-established safety
>> 
>> record of HCQ, this is the dilemma we face:
>>
>> HCQ works HCQ doesn't work
>> HCQ widely dispensed 10,000s of thousands of lives saved $20 wasted
>> per patient
>> HCQ use restricted 10,000s of thousands of needless deaths $0 wasted
>> per patient
>>
>> Even in the face of impartial information on its effectiveness, the
>> decision is clear.
>>
>
>
> https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/04-07-2020-who-discontinues-hydroxychloroquine-and-lopinavir-ritonavir-treatment-arms-for-covid-19
>
> Why not find out from the WHO or the steering committee itself? Just
> be prepared to wait as I believe they are somewhat busy.
>
> But contact them
>

 Find out what from the WHO?

>>>
>>> Why they discontinued the treatment arm and why you think they should
>>> re-establish it (again btw) to save thousands of lives, with your table and
>>> the website. PGC
>>>

>>>
>> It's purely a decision theory problem. They WHO is not infallible (and
>> have demonstrated that recently), the science on HCQs effectiveness is
>> mixed, the science on its safety is clear.
>>
>> Given that there is a clearly optimal decision with a higher expected
>> value.
>>
>
>
> Your table above presents a false dichotomy.
>

It either works or doesn't. That's two options. Unless you can point out a
third one that I missed.


> There is no evidence that use of HCQ is effective as a cure for COVID-19.
>

"No evidence" is a rather poor way to describe "*100% of scientific studies
that have investigated it's early administration*" (see:
https://c19study.com/ )


> It was only ever suggested that it might act prophylactically, or in
> relief of some early stage symptoms. Decision theory is only useful if you
> don't misrepresent the facts
>

What is misrepresented by the table? Either it works or it doesn't.

Jason


>
> Bruce
>
>>
>> The very link you provided says they only cancelled only the late stage
>> testing. They are continuing early and prophylactic use tests.
>>
>> "This decision applies only to the conduct of the Solidarity trial in
>> hospitalized patients and does not affect the possible evaluation in other
>> studies of hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir/ritonavir in non-hospitalized
>> patients or as pre- or post-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19."
>>
>>
>> Jason
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQcsQkAu08HJMY%2BHN9xG6NDx-vc57o_FoSCLV%3DU2Z70MQ%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUjjG7YX3Hq029uyUVcU2HROt7HUrmnfo%2BEL4S7ovexyhg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-07-31 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 10:49 AM Jason Resch  wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:37 PM PGC  wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 2:26:40 AM UTC+2, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:20 PM PGC  wrote:
>>>
 On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 1:12:49 AM UTC+2, Jason wrote:
>
> There have been 65 studies on HCQ. Of all the tests that looked at
> giving it early in the disease, or prophylactically, they showed HCQ was
> beneficial. This site summarizes them all: https://c19study.com/
>
> The only studies that have shown HCQ to be ineffective are those where
> it is given late in the disease progression (when the disease shifts from
> the viral replication phase to an immune system dysregulation phase
> 
> (see page 2)). Even then, 61% of studies have shown some effectiveness 
> even
> when it is given late.
>
> Given the well-established safety
> 
> record of HCQ, this is the dilemma we face:
>
> HCQ works HCQ doesn't work
> HCQ widely dispensed 10,000s of thousands of lives saved $20 wasted
> per patient
> HCQ use restricted 10,000s of thousands of needless deaths $0 wasted
> per patient
>
> Even in the face of impartial information on its effectiveness, the
> decision is clear.
>


 https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/04-07-2020-who-discontinues-hydroxychloroquine-and-lopinavir-ritonavir-treatment-arms-for-covid-19

 Why not find out from the WHO or the steering committee itself? Just be
 prepared to wait as I believe they are somewhat busy.

 But contact them

>>>
>>> Find out what from the WHO?
>>>
>>
>> Why they discontinued the treatment arm and why you think they should
>> re-establish it (again btw) to save thousands of lives, with your table and
>> the website. PGC
>>
>>>
>>
> It's purely a decision theory problem. They WHO is not infallible (and
> have demonstrated that recently), the science on HCQs effectiveness is
> mixed, the science on its safety is clear.
>
> Given that there is a clearly optimal decision with a higher expected
> value.
>


Your table above presents a false dichotomy. There is no evidence that use
of HCQ is effective as a cure for COVID-19. It was only ever suggested that
it might act prophylactically, or in relief of some early stage symptoms.
Decision theory is only useful if you don't misrepresent the facts

Bruce

>
> The very link you provided says they only cancelled only the late stage
> testing. They are continuing early and prophylactic use tests.
>
> "This decision applies only to the conduct of the Solidarity trial in
> hospitalized patients and does not affect the possible evaluation in other
> studies of hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir/ritonavir in non-hospitalized
> patients or as pre- or post-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19."
>
>
> Jason
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQcsQkAu08HJMY%2BHN9xG6NDx-vc57o_FoSCLV%3DU2Z70MQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sharpiegate

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:37 PM PGC  wrote:

>
>
> On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 2:26:40 AM UTC+2, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:20 PM PGC  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 1:12:49 AM UTC+2, Jason wrote:

 There have been 65 studies on HCQ. Of all the tests that looked at
 giving it early in the disease, or prophylactically, they showed HCQ was
 beneficial. This site summarizes them all: https://c19study.com/

 The only studies that have shown HCQ to be ineffective are those where
 it is given late in the disease progression (when the disease shifts from
 the viral replication phase to an immune system dysregulation phase
 
 (see page 2)). Even then, 61% of studies have shown some effectiveness even
 when it is given late.

 Given the well-established safety
 
 record of HCQ, this is the dilemma we face:

 HCQ works HCQ doesn't work
 HCQ widely dispensed 10,000s of thousands of lives saved $20 wasted
 per patient
 HCQ use restricted 10,000s of thousands of needless deaths $0 wasted
 per patient

 Even in the face of impartial information on its effectiveness, the
 decision is clear.

>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/04-07-2020-who-discontinues-hydroxychloroquine-and-lopinavir-ritonavir-treatment-arms-for-covid-19
>>>
>>> Why not find out from the WHO or the steering committee itself? Just be
>>> prepared to wait as I believe they are somewhat busy.
>>>
>>> But contact them
>>>
>>
>> Find out what from the WHO?
>>
>
> Why they discontinued the treatment arm and why you think they should
> re-establish it (again btw) to save thousands of lives, with your table and
> the website. PGC
>
>>
>
It's purely a decision theory problem. They WHO is not infallible (and have
demonstrated that recently), the science on HCQs effectiveness is mixed,
the science on its safety is clear.

Given that there is a clearly optimal decision with a higher expected value.

The very link you provided says they only cancelled only the late stage
testing. They are continuing early and prophylactic use tests.

"This decision applies only to the conduct of the Solidarity trial in
hospitalized patients and does not affect the possible evaluation in other
studies of hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir/ritonavir in non-hospitalized
patients or as pre- or post-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19."


Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUiQtZttiHSVszjVzUWyjZf60wUTPJwS8AYVFytgjj-gYQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-07-31 Thread PGC



On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 2:26:40 AM UTC+2, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:20 PM PGC > 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 1:12:49 AM UTC+2, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>> There have been 65 studies on HCQ. Of all the tests that looked at 
>>> giving it early in the disease, or prophylactically, they showed HCQ was 
>>> beneficial. This site summarizes them all: https://c19study.com/
>>>
>>> The only studies that have shown HCQ to be ineffective are those where 
>>> it is given late in the disease progression (when the disease shifts from 
>>> the viral replication phase to an immune system dysregulation phase 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> (see page 2)). Even then, 61% of studies have shown some effectiveness even 
>>> when it is given late.
>>>
>>> Given the well-established safety 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> record of HCQ, this is the dilemma we face:
>>>
>>> HCQ works HCQ doesn't work
>>> HCQ widely dispensed 10,000s of thousands of lives saved $20 wasted per 
>>> patient
>>> HCQ use restricted 10,000s of thousands of needless deaths $0 wasted 
>>> per patient
>>>
>>> Even in the face of impartial information on its effectiveness, the 
>>> decision is clear.
>>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/04-07-2020-who-discontinues-hydroxychloroquine-and-lopinavir-ritonavir-treatment-arms-for-covid-19
>>
>> Why not find out from the WHO or the steering committee itself? Just be 
>> prepared to wait as I believe they are somewhat busy.
>>
>> But contact them
>>
>
> Find out what from the WHO? 
>

Why they discontinued the treatment arm and why you think they should 
re-establish it (again btw) to save thousands of lives, with your table and 
the website. PGC

>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1030b5a6-b100-4377-b2c1-fbbbc28cc3cfo%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sharpiegate

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:20 PM PGC  wrote:

>
>
> On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 1:12:49 AM UTC+2, Jason wrote:
>>
>> There have been 65 studies on HCQ. Of all the tests that looked at giving
>> it early in the disease, or prophylactically, they showed HCQ was
>> beneficial. This site summarizes them all: https://c19study.com/
>>
>> The only studies that have shown HCQ to be ineffective are those where it
>> is given late in the disease progression (when the disease shifts from the 
>> viral
>> replication phase to an immune system dysregulation phase
>> 
>> (see page 2)). Even then, 61% of studies have shown some effectiveness even
>> when it is given late.
>>
>> Given the well-established safety
>> 
>> record of HCQ, this is the dilemma we face:
>>
>> HCQ works HCQ doesn't work
>> HCQ widely dispensed 10,000s of thousands of lives saved $20 wasted per
>> patient
>> HCQ use restricted 10,000s of thousands of needless deaths $0 wasted per
>> patient
>>
>> Even in the face of impartial information on its effectiveness, the
>> decision is clear.
>>
>
>
> https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/04-07-2020-who-discontinues-hydroxychloroquine-and-lopinavir-ritonavir-treatment-arms-for-covid-19
>
> Why not find out from the WHO or the steering committee itself? Just be
> prepared to wait as I believe they are somewhat busy.
>
> But contact them
>

Find out what from the WHO?

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUgr44E7y3_qc6XA1v6K%2Bv4H348oRj%2BRxCXpVE4e2%2BmQWg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-07-31 Thread PGC



On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 1:12:49 AM UTC+2, Jason wrote:
>
> There have been 65 studies on HCQ. Of all the tests that looked at giving 
> it early in the disease, or prophylactically, they showed HCQ was 
> beneficial. This site summarizes them all: https://c19study.com/
>
> The only studies that have shown HCQ to be ineffective are those where it 
> is given late in the disease progression (when the disease shifts from the 
> viral 
> replication phase to an immune system dysregulation phase 
> 
>  
> (see page 2)). Even then, 61% of studies have shown some effectiveness even 
> when it is given late.
>
> Given the well-established safety 
>  
> record of HCQ, this is the dilemma we face:
>
> HCQ works HCQ doesn't work
> HCQ widely dispensed 10,000s of thousands of lives saved $20 wasted per 
> patient
> HCQ use restricted 10,000s of thousands of needless deaths $0 wasted per 
> patient
>
> Even in the face of impartial information on its effectiveness, the 
> decision is clear.
>

https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/04-07-2020-who-discontinues-hydroxychloroquine-and-lopinavir-ritonavir-treatment-arms-for-covid-19

Why not find out from the WHO or the steering committee itself? Just be 
prepared to wait as I believe they are somewhat busy.

But contact them if you feel the need. PGC
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3aec74a0-08c9-4b92-b784-62d3abd223e6o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sharpiegate

There have been 65 studies on HCQ. Of all the tests that looked at giving
it early in the disease, or prophylactically, they showed HCQ was
beneficial. This site summarizes them all: https://c19study.com/

The only studies that have shown HCQ to be ineffective are those where it
is given late in the disease progression (when the disease shifts from
the viral
replication phase to an immune system dysregulation phase

(see page 2)). Even then, 61% of studies have shown some effectiveness even
when it is given late.

Given the well-established safety

record of HCQ, this is the dilemma we face:

HCQ works HCQ doesn't work
HCQ widely dispensed 10,000s of thousands of lives saved $20 wasted per
patient
HCQ use restricted 10,000s of thousands of needless deaths $0 wasted per
patient

Even in the face of impartial information on its effectiveness, the
decision is clear.

Jason


On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 5:52 PM PGC  wrote:

>
>
> On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 3:58:02 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 30 Jul 2020, at 22:59, PGC  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 10:52:09 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/30/2020 1:02 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
>>>
>>> Refute this Telmo-
>>> https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study
>>>
>>> https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext
>>>
>>> One viewer here indicated this was not a study-but it is a study indeed
>>> concluding the benefits of Hydro.
>>>
>>> Now what do I think? If it works it works, and if it doesn't it doesn't.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's just false.  Some things work on some infections in some people
>>> using some protocols of care.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed. Ongoing large scale international clinical trials are what they
>> are. Nobody claims that they or the papers in their wake are perfect, but
>> to pretend that a few tiny studies are "in need of refutation" or that the
>> world's epidemiological community is orchestrating conspiracies without
>> evidence like some on Twitter and on social media tend to peddle, is naive
>> or evidence of the effectivity of disinformation, *not evidence of
>> effectivity of medication*.
>>
>>
>> OK in principle. But we can also look at the map of the evolution of the
>> virus in country using it and not using it. My own country has used it,
>> France has used it, then change its mind, a number of time.
>> We can also take into account that the US FDA has lied about “not
>> evidence of effectivity of cannabis” since about a century. It is only very
>> recently that it has admit its effectivity for some disease in some public
>> way (it accepted it more discreetly for some rich patients since long
>> though).
>>
>>
>>
>> But if Telmo and/or Mitch need, they can always get in touch with their
>> closest epidemiologists/docs and ask for the data and emails, and inform
>> the coordinating committee of their findings and worries, citing who they
>> wish. While data of the majority of ongoing trials and appropriate
>> epidemiological discourse may not be accessible on the net or published
>> ("ongoing" being somewhat relevant...), it isn't classified or anything. PGC
>>
>>
>>
>> I have done that a little bit, but it is hard to interpret. A biologist
>> friend of mine seems to believe that the Canadian studies showing that
>> Hydroxychoroquine is better than Remdesevir is rather serious. The amount
>> of money hidden in the pharmaceutical debate is so big that the
>> misinformation is perpetual. But you are right: it is not classified, and
>> even just googling on the net shows that hydroxychloroquine, when used
>> convenably, *might* be better than some other medication, and perhaps
>> cannabis is still better (as more and more studies seem to show).
>>
>
> If you, Mitch, Telmo, your biologist friend, or Trump have data concerning
> effectiveness of HCQ with significant sample sizes in randomized
> placebo-controlled trials, and can demonstrate that said trials are free of
> epidemiologists' long lists of possible issues/bias, then the only thing
> stopping you guys from stepping forward and making world history as
> non-professionals is your own minds. PGC
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/84ac1e66-92eb-4cf8-85e7-0f9e74f1c3ceo%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-07-31 Thread PGC



On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 3:58:02 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 30 Jul 2020, at 22:59, PGC > wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 10:52:09 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 7/30/2020 1:02 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
>>
>> Refute this Telmo- 
>> https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study
>>
>> https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext
>>
>> One viewer here indicated this was not a study-but it is a study indeed 
>> concluding the benefits of Hydro. 
>>
>> Now what do I think? If it works it works, and if it doesn't it doesn't. 
>>
>>
>> That's just false.  Some things work on some infections in some people 
>> using some protocols of care.  
>>
>
> Agreed. Ongoing large scale international clinical trials are what they 
> are. Nobody claims that they or the papers in their wake are perfect, but 
> to pretend that a few tiny studies are "in need of refutation" or that the 
> world's epidemiological community is orchestrating conspiracies without 
> evidence like some on Twitter and on social media tend to peddle, is naive 
> or evidence of the effectivity of disinformation, *not evidence of 
> effectivity of medication*. 
>
>
> OK in principle. But we can also look at the map of the evolution of the 
> virus in country using it and not using it. My own country has used it, 
> France has used it, then change its mind, a number of time.
> We can also take into account that the US FDA has lied about “not evidence 
> of effectivity of cannabis” since about a century. It is only very recently 
> that it has admit its effectivity for some disease in some public way (it 
> accepted it more discreetly for some rich patients since long though).
>
>
>
> But if Telmo and/or Mitch need, they can always get in touch with their 
> closest epidemiologists/docs and ask for the data and emails, and inform 
> the coordinating committee of their findings and worries, citing who they 
> wish. While data of the majority of ongoing trials and appropriate 
> epidemiological discourse may not be accessible on the net or published 
> ("ongoing" being somewhat relevant...), it isn't classified or anything. PGC
>
>
>
> I have done that a little bit, but it is hard to interpret. A biologist 
> friend of mine seems to believe that the Canadian studies showing that 
> Hydroxychoroquine is better than Remdesevir is rather serious. The amount 
> of money hidden in the pharmaceutical debate is so big that the 
> misinformation is perpetual. But you are right: it is not classified, and 
> even just googling on the net shows that hydroxychloroquine, when used 
> convenably, *might* be better than some other medication, and perhaps 
> cannabis is still better (as more and more studies seem to show).
>

If you, Mitch, Telmo, your biologist friend, or Trump have data concerning 
effectiveness of HCQ with significant sample sizes in randomized 
placebo-controlled trials, and can demonstrate that said trials are free of 
epidemiologists' long lists of possible issues/bias, then the only thing 
stopping you guys from stepping forward and making world history as 
non-professionals is your own minds. PGC



  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/84ac1e66-92eb-4cf8-85e7-0f9e74f1c3ceo%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-07-31 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

THC, like alcohol is a powerful agent, and does have some medicinal effects as 
noted. There are medical reasons pro and con to apply or avoid any drug. I am 
more impressed by the 50 thousand physicians around the globe who take it as a 
preventative, or at treatment for patients. If we lose sight over what may be 
effective, over ideological loyalty, then all we do is say, My religion won't 
allow it because Orange man Bad! If it doesn't work, then the hell with it, 
onward to better treatments and vaccines. 

-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, Jul 31, 2020 9:19 am
Subject: Re: Sharpiegate



On 29 Jul 2020, at 14:00, John Clark  wrote:
The following is from the July 10 issue of the journal Science and shows just 
how far Donald Trump is willing to corrupt science just so he doesn't have to 
admit he was wrong: 
NOAA watchdog chides agency for how it handled Hurricane Dorian’s ‘Sharpiegate’
And meanwhile just yesterday Trump was back on national television pushing a 
quack cure for COVID-19 (hydroxychloroquine) on millions of Americans and using 
as his "very impressive evidence" testimony of a doctor who believes facemasks 
are unnecessary, and many illnesses are caused by people having sex in their 
dreams with demons and witches, and the COVID-19 vaccines in development are 
made of DNA from space alien's demon sperm to make people less religious.  

The good doctor also believes the US government is not run by human beings but 
by creatures called "reptilians"... come to think of it ... she may not be 
entirely wrong on that last point.




Hmm… you might need to be more careful on this, because it is invalid to say 
that A is false because P asserts it using the fact that P said (many) false 
statements. You can certainly doubt it for that reason, but sometimes, some 
liars can say some truth.
About hydroxychloroquine, by taking an entire afternoon a while ago to Google 
on "countries, hydoxychloroquine chloroquine coronavirus covid-19", my current 
position is that the studies made in cannada might be right, and they 
corroborate most statements made by Didier Raoult in Marseilles ( guy who 
published 2000 papers and is well seen and listen by its peers). 
Hydroxychloroquine is not a panacea at all, but it eems slightly better than 
Remdesevir (used in the US). Also cannabis seems to be slightly better than 
hydroxychloroquine.It does seem that the countries using hydroxychlroquine (in 
fact almost all) manage better the crisis than those who did not, but it is 
hard to conclude anything definite, as many others factors are in play. I have 
no real opinion on this, but some talk like if they knew the “obvious truth”.
About Cannabis, the work by Mechoulam (the discovers of THC and of its agonist 
in the brain/immune system) shows that it is an immune-stimulant, as opposed to 
alcohol which is known since long to be an immune-depressant, in which case it 
is criminal to not inform the people on this during a pandemic. It is time to 
switch the recreative use of alcohol and cannabis!
I certainly doubt any statements about medication made by the FDA. They lie too 
much since too long, and indeed, I think that they are the one responsible for 
the arrival of Trump and that type of bandits who don’t even tray to hide their 
criminal conducts.
Brno





John K Clark
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3NTtouiP6tPBLKTFpYcWbtWWCzhabKgxK%2BmvcGpZHUow%40mail.gmail.com.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/363F62C0-B1DD-4319-8172-A83CF3671DC2%40ulb.ac.be.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2129704503.8581548.1596233298474%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-07-31 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

You really must read up on your history more Bruno, That term comes from the 
nazis and not I. Here is a 2015 Scientific American article reviewing a book by 
Philip Ball,  The Struggle for the Soul of Physics. 
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-2-pro-nazi-nobelists-attacked-einstein-s-jewish-science-excerpt1/
I am accusing the politicization of medical science and the observations of 
physicians who have claimed that hydro can be helpful. I  have no opposition to 
anything that can help, whether Donald Trump likes it or not? The opposition 
here is more concerned with defeating the president in the election, blaming 
him for democrat arson and looting, so as to secure the election for their 
leaders, Kamala Harris, the real presidential candidate, and Joe Biden, their 
figurehead. Thus, if orange dude recommended aspirin as a blood thinner for 
suspected heart attacks, those here, would oppose it vehemently.


-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, Jul 31, 2020 9:30 am
Subject: Re: Sharpiegate



On 30 Jul 2020, at 20:17, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:
Actually it is a summary. The conclusion is that Hydro can be efficacious is 
50-70% of the cases. This is now a time AAAS Science's opinion aside (pharma 
funded?) when most experts regarding covid have been proven wrong, and perhaps 
deliberately on their part. Politicized science is not science at all. 

Right. Like politicised religion is not religion at all. In fact those get 
transformed, when politicised, into tools to prevent researches in the domain, 
and combat any concurrent ideas.


Whether it's Jewish Physics, or Lysenko's biology, 

Lyssenko’s biology was state authoritarian biology. It has led to the death of 
30 millions of people in the USSR (the biggest famine due to "human error”).
I have no clue what you mean by Jewish Physics. Einstein?

Bruno


or even threats of climate collapse. To quote Galileo, It Moves, Still. Its 
either true or not? Who is ever president notwithstanding.


-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Thu, Jul 30, 2020 7:57 am
Subject: Re: Sharpiegate

On Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 7:04:07 PM UTC-5 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

Again, regarding, Hydroxychloroquine, please refute:  

https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study
https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7330574/



I am not near enough of a bio-medical scientist to comment on these papers and 
what might be wrong with these. The last is just the NIH listing of papers and 
their abstracts or briefs. This is not an endorsement of the results. I am just 
aware results or claims of such results showing an efficacy for 
hydroxychloriquine are a minority report. The at large verdict is opposite.
LC 
-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Wed, Jul 29, 2020 7:55 pm
Subject: Re: Sharpiegate

On Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 7:01:12 AM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

The following is from the July 10 issue of the journal Science and shows just 
how far Donald Trump is willing to corrupt science just so he doesn't have to 
admit he was wrong: 
NOAA watchdog chides agency for how it handled Hurricane Dorian’s ‘Sharpiegate’

It is a case of how people become sycophants for t'Rump. 

And meanwhile just yesterday Trump was back on national television pushing a 
quack cure for COVID-19 (hydroxychloroquine) on millions of Americans and using 
as his "very impressive evidence" testimony of a doctor who believes facemasks 
are unnecessary, and many illnesses are caused by people having sex in their 
dreams with demons and witches, and the COVID-19 vaccines in development are 
made of DNA from space alien's demon sperm to make people less religious.  

It is my understanding that double-blind tests of hydroxycholoroqune have shown 
no efficacy for this and can't be judged an effective treatment of Covid-19. 
This is in contrast to the other links sent in this thread. Don-the-Con t'Rump 
bought shares of stock from a company in India back when he was met with PM 
Modi. Hey, wait! He violated the emoluments clause, but then again who pays 
attention to that old rag called the Constitution these days?
The Lizard men or Saurians from outer space! This has been around for a while. 
I remember running into this about 20 years ago. It is a crazy idea spun by a 
British media sports reporter. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilian_conspiracy_theory  

LC 


The good doctor also believes the US government is not run by human beings but 
by creatures called "reptilians"... come to think of it ... she may not be 
entirely wrong on that last point.

John K Clark
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop rece

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-07-31 Thread Lawrence Crowell

There is a huge range of quackery in medicine, and the 1970s claim that 
apricot pits cure cancer, or there is some compound extracted from them, 
persists to this day. It is similar and bigger than the quasi-physics that 
plagues the web. I tend to consider the source for claims and whether the 
claim is indeed a zombie. I am not sure if hydroxychloriquine is a zombie 
treatment for Covid, but it appears to be heading that way. The problem 
with zombies, is they can be killed, but they come back. It is a bit like 
shooting ducks in a carnival shooting gallery; they can be shot, but they 
pop back up. A person who promotes zombie science, such as Fred Singer who 
denies CO2 warming, just cannot be taken seriously. After somebody has 
demonstrated a history of this sort of thing you just ignore them.

LC

On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 9:21:27 AM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 9:19 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> >  it is invalid to say that A is false because P asserts it
>
>
> There is more to intelligence than just deduction, there is also induction 
> which is at least as powerful. If everything P has asserted in the past has 
> been shown to be false and now P asserts A then you can conclude that A is 
> probably, although not certainly, also false. That's why most intelligent 
> people wouldn't accept medical advice from somebody who in the past has 
> asserted that vaccines are made from space alien sperm to make people less 
> religious, and ovarian cysts are caused by woman dreaming about having 
> sex with deamons. But Trump is fine with taking such advice because Trump 
> is not intelligent.
>
> John K Clark
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/11925d39-763d-4c8c-a621-cdc9b0aec4d5n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-07-31 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 9:19 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>  it is invalid to say that A is false because P asserts it


There is more to intelligence than just deduction, there is also induction
which is at least as powerful. If everything P has asserted in the past has
been shown to be false and now P asserts A then you can conclude that A is
probably, although not certainly, also false. That's why most intelligent
people wouldn't accept medical advice from somebody who in the past has
asserted that vaccines are made from space alien sperm to make people less
religious, and ovarian cysts are caused by woman dreaming about having sex
with deamons. But Trump is fine with taking such advice because Trump is
not intelligent.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv20eCO7JVkP%3DtxybWGkiMzQ53xeYBWgnHhPFGiRCuD58g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sharpiegate

> On 30 Jul 2020, at 22:59, PGC  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 10:52:09 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/30/2020 1:02 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
>> Refute this Telmo-
>> https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study 
>> 
>> 
>> https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext 
>> 
>> 
>> One viewer here indicated this was not a study-but it is a study indeed 
>> concluding the benefits of Hydro. 
>> 
>> Now what do I think? If it works it works, and if it doesn't it doesn't.
> 
> That's just false.  Some things work on some infections in some people using 
> some protocols of care.  
> 
> Agreed. Ongoing large scale international clinical trials are what they are. 
> Nobody claims that they or the papers in their wake are perfect, but to 
> pretend that a few tiny studies are "in need of refutation" or that the 
> world's epidemiological community is orchestrating conspiracies without 
> evidence like some on Twitter and on social media tend to peddle, is naive or 
> evidence of the effectivity of disinformation, not evidence of effectivity of 
> medication. 

OK in principle. But we can also look at the map of the evolution of the virus 
in country using it and not using it. My own country has used it, France has 
used it, then change its mind, a number of time.
We can also take into account that the US FDA has lied about “not evidence of 
effectivity of cannabis” since about a century. It is only very recently that 
it has admit its effectivity for some disease in some public way (it accepted 
it more discreetly for some rich patients since long though).

> 
> But if Telmo and/or Mitch need, they can always get in touch with their 
> closest epidemiologists/docs and ask for the data and emails, and inform the 
> coordinating committee of their findings and worries, citing who they wish. 
> While data of the majority of ongoing trials and appropriate epidemiological 
> discourse may not be accessible on the net or published ("ongoing" being 
> somewhat relevant...), it isn't classified or anything. PGC

I have done that a little bit, but it is hard to interpret. A biologist friend 
of mine seems to believe that the Canadian studies showing that 
Hydroxychoroquine is better than Remdesevir is rather serious. The amount of 
money hidden in the pharmaceutical debate is so big that the misinformation is 
perpetual. But you are right: it is not classified, and even just googling on 
the net shows that hydroxychloroquine, when used convenably, *might* be better 
than some other medication, and perhaps cannabis is still better (as more and 
more studies seem to show).

Bruno

>  
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7b0f1042-5393-4803-a0ed-0267dce99170n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/89274F3F-2275-47B2-8B8C-7425EB8A4C43%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sharpiegate


> On 30 Jul 2020, at 22:23, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> I am not going to pass judgment on this. I can't really do that. I can only 
> say that this is a minority report. The general consensus I am hearing

… in the US. Not in Europe and Asia, who use hydroxychloroquine. It is not seen 
as a panacea, but as less dangerous than Remdesvir, and slightly better. But 
the hydoxychoroquine needs to be used with a precise protocol, before some 
organ are infected, or more aptly, destroyed by an immune-reaction of the 
patient itself. Once the lungs are destroyed, it seems that there is no more 
virus in the body of the patient. Most death by the covid-29 are due to 
“allergic” type of reaction.



> is that a compound that changes the pH of blood in a way that slows the 
> progress of a protistan responsible for malaria has no influence on a corona 
> virus.

OK. But that is not an argument to say that it does not work (better than other 
medication in use).

It is a complex debate, but when I find logic error in negative argument, I 
decide to be very vigilant, on both sides of the issue.

Bruno



> 
> LC
> 
> On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 3:02:12 PM UTC-5 spudb...@aol.com wrote:
> Refute this Telmo-
> https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study 
> <https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study>
> 
> https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext 
> <https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext>
> 
> One viewer here indicated this was not a study-but it is a study indeed 
> concluding the benefits of Hydro. 
> 
> Now what do I think? If it works it works, and if it doesn't it doesn't. Do 
> the opponents of the old drug in question care if it works? Seemingly no, 
> they are just foaming at the mouth because Orange Dude endorsed it. If it 
> doesn't work, screw it. If it can help some people, keep it at hand. What 
> does John Clark care about? Orange Man Bad!  This has zero to do with 
> fighting the Wuhan flu. For the opponents of Orange Man nothing else matters. 
> Civil (US) Conflict? Next stop! Take care.
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Telmo Menezes  >
> To: John Clark  >; 'Brent Meeker' via 
> Everything List  >
> Sent: Thu, Jul 30, 2020 2:28 pm
> Subject: Re: Sharpiegate
> 
> 
> 
> Am Do, 30. Jul 2020, um 17:16, schrieb John Clark:
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:27 AM Telmo Menezes > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> > I disapprove of Trump and everything he stands for as much as you do. I 
>> > detest him. He is an incompetent narcissist, and his election as the 
>> > president of the USA was a nightmare come true.
>> 
>> Truer words were never spoken! 
>> 
>> > I think that the current extreme political polarization of all things is 
>> > doing damage to science. A symptom of this is that the epistemological 
>> > status of things such as the efficacy of hydroxychloriquine became 
>> > impossible to determine for those not deeply involved in the field, even 
>> > if scientifically literate and able to follow the papers.
>> 
>> Crackpots, and in that I would include Trump supporters and 
>> thehydroxychloroquine cure COVID-19 people, don't just dispute well 
>> established theories, they dispute the raw data itself. I've had otherwise 
>> intelligent people tell me that every epidemiologist in the world is wrong, 
>> and the entire scientific community is wrong, and even insist every bit of 
>> data we have about COVID-19 is wrong. Why would they do that? Because if the 
>> data was right they would have to radically change their worldview and face 
>> the fact that Donald Trump is not doing a good job. Changing one's worldview 
>> is quite painful for some people.
>> 
>> Nobody can be knowledgeable about everything, so if the vast majority of 
>> expert specialists in the world on a very complicated subject like 
>> epidemiology, agrees on something, people who have spent their life studying 
>> the subject, then I think they are much more likely to be correct then you 
>> or I are after we've only been studying the matter for 20 minutes or so. 
>> That's why people read scientific journals and believe that what they say is 
>> probably true even if they haven't personally carried out the experiments 
>> described in them. People that we trust, because they have proven to be 
>> right in the past, judge new research and if they think it's not valid they 
>> don't publish it in their journals, and if they think it is valid then they 
>> do. It's a web of trust, it's what the cryptographic program PGP uses to 
>> ensure that a p

Re: Sharpiegate


> On 30 Jul 2020, at 20:28, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Am Do, 30. Jul 2020, um 17:16, schrieb John Clark:
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:27 AM Telmo Menezes > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> > I disapprove of Trump and everything he stands for as much as you do. I 
>> > detest him. He is an incompetent narcissist, and his election as the 
>> > president of the USA was a nightmare come true.
>> 
>> Truer words were never spoken! 
>> 
>> > I think that the current extreme political polarization of all things is 
>> > doing damage to science. A symptom of this is that the epistemological 
>> > status of things such as the efficacy of hydroxychloriquine became 
>> > impossible to determine for those not deeply involved in the field, even 
>> > if scientifically literate and able to follow the papers.
>> 
>> Crackpots, and in that I would include Trump supporters and 
>> thehydroxychloroquine cure COVID-19 people, don't just dispute well 
>> established theories, they dispute the raw data itself. I've had otherwise 
>> intelligent people tell me that every epidemiologist in the world is wrong, 
>> and the entire scientific community is wrong, and even insist every bit of 
>> data we have about COVID-19 is wrong. Why would they do that? Because if the 
>> data was right they would have to radically change their worldview and face 
>> the fact that Donald Trump is not doing a good job. Changing one's worldview 
>> is quite painful for some people.
>> 
>> Nobody can be knowledgeable about everything, so if the vast majority of 
>> expert specialists in the world on a very complicated subject like 
>> epidemiology, agrees on something, people who have spent their life studying 
>> the subject, then I think they are much more likely to be correct then you 
>> or I are after we've only been studying the matter for 20 minutes or so. 
>> That's why people read scientific journals and believe that what they say is 
>> probably true even if they haven't personally carried out the experiments 
>> described in them. People that we trust, because they have proven to be 
>> right in the past, judge new research and if they think it's not valid they 
>> don't publish it in their journals, and if they think it is valid then they 
>> do. It's a web of trust, it's what the cryptographic program PGP uses to 
>> ensure that a public key really belongs to the person that it claims to. And 
>> history has shown the system, although not perfect, works pretty well most 
>> of the time, which is a hell of a lot better than most things work.
>> 
>> And by the way, I don't think Trump has spent even 20 minutes studying viral 
>> epidemiology or statistical theory in his entire life. 
> 
> I more or less agree with everything you say. That is exactly why I worry 
> that incidents such as the Lancet retraction are damaging to the web of trust.

Personally, the lancet retraction augment the evidence that it is serious. They 
correct their mistake. The initial paper is more like what is the shame, and 
not all journal retracts their papers when they are disproved.

Personally, I will remain cautious about any “governmental talk on a 
medication” as long as prohibition exist.

Health should be separated from the state for the same reason than religion has 
to be separated from the state, at least in the democracies.

>From the accessible excerpt from the book by Mary Trump (Trump’s niece), I am 
>afraid that Trump has not spend even one minute to study anything. I think he 
>is con artist period, escaping forward a life of lies. He has nothing to lose. 
>November will be hot.

Bruno



> 
> Telmo
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/777296fb-a76b-4b8a-aef6-f8bb70c45aa4%40www.fastmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6D064CB0-5D10-4E60-897A-B80C7404CC59%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sharpiegate


> On 30 Jul 2020, at 20:17, spudboy100 via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> Actually it is a summary. The conclusion is that Hydro can be efficacious is 
> 50-70% of the cases. This is now a time AAAS Science's opinion aside (pharma 
> funded?) when most experts regarding covid have been proven wrong, and 
> perhaps deliberately on their part. Politicized science is not science at all.

Right. Like politicised religion is not religion at all. In fact those get 
transformed, when politicised, into tools to prevent researches in the domain, 
and combat any concurrent ideas.


> Whether it's Jewish Physics, or Lysenko's biology,

Lyssenko’s biology was state authoritarian biology. It has led to the death of 
30 millions of people in the USSR (the biggest famine due to "human error”).

I have no clue what you mean by Jewish Physics. Einstein?


Bruno


> or even threats of climate collapse. To quote Galileo, It Moves, Still. Its 
> either true or not? Who is ever president notwithstanding.
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Crowell 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Thu, Jul 30, 2020 7:57 am
> Subject: Re: Sharpiegate
> 
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 7:04:07 PM UTC-5 spudb...@aol.com wrote:
> Again, regarding, Hydroxychloroquine, please refute:  
> 
> https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study 
> <https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study>
> 
> https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext 
> <https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext>
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7330574/ 
> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7330574/>
> 
> 
> 
> I am not near enough of a bio-medical scientist to comment on these papers 
> and what might be wrong with these. The last is just the NIH listing of 
> papers and their abstracts or briefs. This is not an endorsement of the 
> results. I am just aware results or claims of such results showing an 
> efficacy for hydroxychloriquine are a minority report. The at large verdict 
> is opposite.
> 
> LC
>  
> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Crowell >
> To: Everything List >
> Sent: Wed, Jul 29, 2020 7:55 pm
> Subject: Re: Sharpiegate
> 
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 7:01:12 AM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com <> wrote:
> The following is from the July 10 issue of the journal Science and shows just 
> how far Donald Trump is willing to corrupt science just so he doesn't have to 
> admit he was wrong: 
> 
> NOAA watchdog chides agency for how it handled Hurricane Dorian’s 
> ‘Sharpiegate’ 
> <https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/07/noaa-watchdog-chides-agency-how-it-handled-hurricane-dorian-s-sharpiegate>
> 
> It is a case of how people become sycophants for t'Rump.
>  
> 
> And meanwhile just yesterday Trump was back on national television pushing a 
> quack cure for COVID-19 (hydroxychloroquine) on millions of Americans and 
> using as his "very impressive evidence" testimony of a doctor who believes 
> facemasks are unnecessary, and many illnesses are caused by people having sex 
> in their dreams with demons and witches, and the COVID-19 vaccines in 
> development are made of DNA from space alien's demon sperm to make people 
> less religious.  
> 
> It is my understanding that double-blind tests of hydroxycholoroqune have 
> shown no efficacy for this and can't be judged an effective treatment of 
> Covid-19. This is in contrast to the other links sent in this thread. 
> Don-the-Con t'Rump bought shares of stock from a company in India back when 
> he was met with PM Modi. Hey, wait! He violated the emoluments clause, but 
> then again who pays attention to that old rag called the Constitution these 
> days?
> 
> The Lizard men or Saurians from outer space! This has been around for a 
> while. I remember running into this about 20 years ago. It is a crazy idea 
> spun by a British media sports reporter. 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilian_conspiracy_theory 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilian_conspiracy_theory>  
> 
> LC
>  
> 
> 
> The good doctor also believes the US government is not run by human beings 
> but by creatures called "reptilians"... come to think of it ... she may not 
> be entirely wrong on that last point.
> 
> John K Clark
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com <>.
> 
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/e

Re: Sharpiegate

> On 29 Jul 2020, at 14:00, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> The following is from the July 10 issue of the journal Science and shows just 
> how far Donald Trump is willing to corrupt science just so he doesn't have to 
> admit he was wrong: 
> 
> NOAA watchdog chides agency for how it handled Hurricane Dorian’s 
> ‘Sharpiegate’ 
> <https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/07/noaa-watchdog-chides-agency-how-it-handled-hurricane-dorian-s-sharpiegate>
> 
> And meanwhile just yesterday Trump was back on national television pushing a 
> quack cure for COVID-19 (hydroxychloroquine) on millions of Americans and 
> using as his "very impressive evidence" testimony of a doctor who believes 
> facemasks are unnecessary, and many illnesses are caused by people having sex 
> in their dreams with demons and witches, and the COVID-19 vaccines in 
> development are made of DNA from space alien's demon sperm to make people 
> less religious.  
> 
> The good doctor also believes the US government is not run by human beings 
> but by creatures called "reptilians"... come to think of it ... she may not 
> be entirely wrong on that last point.

Hmm… you might need to be more careful on this, because it is invalid to say 
that A is false because P asserts it using the fact that P said (many) false 
statements. You can certainly doubt it for that reason, but sometimes, some 
liars can say some truth.

About hydroxychloroquine, by taking an entire afternoon a while ago to Google 
on "countries, hydoxychloroquine chloroquine coronavirus covid-19", my current 
position is that the studies made in cannada might be right, and they 
corroborate most statements made by Didier Raoult in Marseilles ( guy who 
published 2000 papers and is well seen and listen by its peers). 
Hydroxychloroquine is not a panacea at all, but it eems slightly better than 
Remdesevir (used in the US). Also cannabis seems to be slightly better than 
hydroxychloroquine.
It does seem that the countries using hydroxychlroquine (in fact almost all) 
manage better the crisis than those who did not, but it is hard to conclude 
anything definite, as many others factors are in play. I have no real opinion 
on this, but some talk like if they knew the “obvious truth”.

About Cannabis, the work by Mechoulam (the discovers of THC and of its agonist 
in the brain/immune system) shows that it is an immune-stimulant, as opposed to 
alcohol which is known since long to be an immune-depressant, in which case it 
is criminal to not inform the people on this during a pandemic. It is time to 
switch the recreative use of alcohol and cannabis!

I certainly doubt any statements about medication made by the FDA. They lie too 
much since too long, and indeed, I think that they are the one responsible for 
the arrival of Trump and that type of bandits who don’t even tray to hide their 
criminal conducts.

Brno

> 
> John K Clark
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3NTtouiP6tPBLKTFpYcWbtWWCzhabKgxK%2BmvcGpZHUow%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3NTtouiP6tPBLKTFpYcWbtWWCzhabKgxK%2BmvcGpZHUow%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/363F62C0-B1DD-4319-8172-A83CF3671DC2%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sharpiegate

Yeah, the simplest approach is to determine whether Atomic Energy works of not 
(so to speak) even if Dur Fuhrer agrees that it does? I look forward to any 
treatment or vaccine that does one thing; works! By then we may have Split as a 
nation state, which considering the history of plagues (Justinian's Plague, the 
1348 Bubonic, Smallpox, etc) shouldn't surprise anyone. Maybe well even reach 
the Singularity due to GPT-3 :-)


-Original Message-
From: PGC 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Thu, Jul 30, 2020 4:59 pm
Subject: Re: Sharpiegate



On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 10:52:09 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote:

 
 
 On 7/30/2020 1:02 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
  
 Refute this Telmo- 
https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study 
  https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext 
  One viewer here indicated this was not a study-but it is a study indeed 
concluding the benefits of Hydro.  
  Now what do I think? If it works it works, and if it doesn't it doesn't.   
 
 That's just false.  Some things work on some infections in some people using 
some protocols of care.  


Agreed. Ongoing large scale international clinical trials are what they are. 
Nobody claims that they or the papers in their wake are perfect, but to pretend 
that a few tiny studies are "in need of refutation" or that the world's 
epidemiological community is orchestrating conspiracies without evidence like 
some on Twitter and on social media tend to peddle, is naive or evidence of the 
effectivity of disinformation, not evidence of effectivity of medication. 
But if Telmo and/or Mitch need, they can always get in touch with their closest 
epidemiologists/docs and ask for the data and emails, and inform the 
coordinating committee of their findings and worries, citing who they wish. 
While data of the majority of ongoing trials and appropriate epidemiological 
discourse may not be accessible on the net or published ("ongoing" being 
somewhat relevant...), it isn't classified or anything. PGC -- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7b0f1042-5393-4803-a0ed-0267dce99170n%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2132922943.8188968.1596149694131%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Sharpiegate

I would say that whomever propagates a potential fix for this problem, or any 
problem, we go with what we know, or what we think we know, since the experts 
have failed us. So, if Hydro is worse then useless-so be it. I mean, old 
adolf's Germany came up with methadone as a substitute for morphine, or 
developed rockets, so should we have ignored what the accomplished because they 
were mass murderers? Thus, if Orange says something that proves wrong, he is 
wrong, and if  correct, he is correct. If he endorsed remdesevir, and it does 
prove efficacious, then it works. If its ineffective, we move beyond it. 

-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Thu, Jul 30, 2020 4:23 pm
Subject: Re: Sharpiegate

I am not going to pass judgment on this. I can't really do that. I can only say 
that this is a minority report. The general consensus I am hearing is that a 
compound that changes the pH of blood in a way that slows the progress of a 
protistan responsible for malaria has no influence on a corona virus.
LC

On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 3:02:12 PM UTC-5 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

Refute this Telmo-https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study
https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext
One viewer here indicated this was not a study-but it is a study indeed 
concluding the benefits of Hydro. 
Now what do I think? If it works it works, and if it doesn't it doesn't. Do the 
opponents of the old drug in question care if it works? Seemingly no, they are 
just foaming at the mouth because Orange Dude endorsed it. If it doesn't work, 
screw it. If it can help some people, keep it at hand. What does John Clark 
care about? Orange Man Bad!  This has zero to do with fighting the Wuhan flu. 
For the opponents of Orange Man nothing else matters. Civil (US) Conflict? Next 
stop! Take care.

-Original Message-
From: Telmo Menezes 
To: John Clark ; 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 

Sent: Thu, Jul 30, 2020 2:28 pm
Subject: Re: Sharpiegate

Am Do, 30. Jul 2020, um 17:16, schrieb John Clark:

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:27 AM Telmo Menezes  wrote:

> I disapprove of Trump and everything he stands for as much as you do. I 
> detest him. He is an incompetent narcissist, and his election as the 
> president of the USA was a nightmare come true.

Truer words were never spoken! 

> I think that the current extreme political polarization of all things is 
> doing damage to science. A symptom of this is that the epistemological status 
> of things such as the efficacy of hydroxychloriquine became impossible to 
> determine for those not deeply involved in the field, even if scientifically 
> literate and able to follow the papers.

Crackpots, and in that I would include Trump supporters and 
thehydroxychloroquine cure COVID-19 people, don't just dispute well established 
theories, they dispute the raw data itself. I've had otherwise intelligent 
people tell me that every epidemiologist in the world is wrong, and the entire 
scientific community is wrong, and even insist every bit of data we have about 
COVID-19 is wrong. Why would they do that? Because if the data was right they 
would have to radically change their worldview and face the fact that Donald 
Trump is not doing a good job. Changing one's worldview is quite painful for 
some people.

Nobody can be knowledgeable about everything, so if the vast majority of expert 
specialists in the world on a very complicated subject like epidemiology, 
agrees on something, people who have spent their life studying the subject, 
then I think they are much more likely to be correct then you or I are after 
we've only been studying the matter for 20 minutes or so. That's why people 
read scientific journals and believe that what they say is probably true even 
if they haven't personally carried out the experiments described in them. 
People that we trust, because they have proven to be right in the past, judge 
new research and if they think it's not valid they don't publish it in their 
journals, and if they think it is valid then they do. It's a web of trust, it's 
what the cryptographic program PGP uses to ensure that a public key really 
belongs to the person that it claims to. And history has shown the system, 
although not perfect, works pretty well most of the time, which is a hell of a 
lot better than most things work.

And by the way, I don't think Trump has spent even 20 minutes studying viral 
epidemiology or statistical theory in his entire life. 

I more or less agree with everything you say. That is exactly why I worry that 
incidents such as the Lancet retraction are damaging to the web of trust.

Telmo

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-07-30 Thread PGC

On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 10:52:09 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote:

>
>
> On 7/30/2020 1:02 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
>
> Refute this Telmo- 
> https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study
>
> https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext
>
> One viewer here indicated this was not a study-but it is a study indeed 
> concluding the benefits of Hydro. 
>
> Now what do I think? If it works it works, and if it doesn't it doesn't. 
>
>
> That's just false.  Some things work on some infections in some people 
> using some protocols of care.  
>

Agreed. Ongoing large scale international clinical trials are what they 
are. Nobody claims that they or the papers in their wake are perfect, but 
to pretend that a few tiny studies are "in need of refutation" or that the 
world's epidemiological community is orchestrating conspiracies without 
evidence like some on Twitter and on social media tend to peddle, is naive 
or evidence of the effectivity of disinformation, *not evidence of 
effectivity of medication*. 

But if Telmo and/or Mitch need, they can always get in touch with their 
closest epidemiologists/docs and ask for the data and emails, and inform 
the coordinating committee of their findings and worries, citing who they 
wish. While data of the majority of ongoing trials and appropriate 
epidemiological discourse may not be accessible on the net or published 
("ongoing" being somewhat relevant...), it isn't classified or anything. PGC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7b0f1042-5393-4803-a0ed-0267dce99170n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-07-30 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 7/30/2020 1:02 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

Refute this Telmo-
https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study

https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext

One viewer here indicated this was not a study-but it is a study 
indeed concluding the benefits of Hydro.

Now what do I think? If it works it works, and if it doesn't it doesn't.

That's just false.  Some things work on some infections in some people 
using some protocols of care.

Brent

Do the opponents of the old drug in question care if it works? 
Seemingly no, they are just foaming at the mouth because Orange Dude 
endorsed it. If it doesn't work, screw it. If it can help some people, 
keep it at hand. What does John Clark care about? Orange Man Bad!  
This has zero to do with fighting the Wuhan flu. For the opponents of 
Orange Man nothing else matters. Civil (US) Conflict? Next stop! Take 
care.

-Original Message-
From: Telmo Menezes 
To: John Clark ; 'Brent Meeker' via Everything 
List 

Sent: Thu, Jul 30, 2020 2:28 pm
Subject: Re: Sharpiegate

Am Do, 30. Jul 2020, um 17:16, schrieb John Clark:

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:27 AM Telmo Menezes 
mailto:te...@telmomenezes.net>> wrote:

> /I disapprove of Trump and everything he stands for as much as
you do. I detest him. He is an incompetent narcissist, and his
election as the president of the USA was a nightmare come true./

Truer words were never spoken!

> /I think that the current extreme political polarization of all
things is doing damage to science. A symptom of this is that the
epistemological status of things such as the efficacy of
hydroxychloriquine became impossible to determine for those not
deeply involved in the field, even if scientifically literate and
able to follow the papers./

Crackpots, and in that I would include Trump supporters and 
thehydroxychloroquinecure COVID-19 people, don't just dispute well 
established theories, they dispute the raw data itself. I've had 
otherwise intelligent people tell me that every epidemiologist in the 
world is wrong, and the entire scientific community is wrong, and 
even insist every bit of data we have about COVID-19 is wrong. Why 
would they do that? Because if the data was right they would have to 
radically change their worldview and face the fact that Donald Trump 
is not doing a good job. Changing one's worldview is quite painful 
for some people.

Nobody can be knowledgeable about everything, so if the vast majority 
of expert specialists in the world on a very complicated subject like 
epidemiology, agrees on something, people who have spent their life 
studying the subject, then I think they are much more likely to be 
correct then you or I are after we've only been studying the matter 
for 20 minutes or so. That's why people read scientific journals and 
believe that what they say is probably true even if they haven't 
personally carried out the experiments described in them. People that 
we trust, because they have proven to be right in the past, judge new 
research and if they think it's not valid they don't publish it in 
their journals, and if they think it is valid then they do. It's a 
web of trust, it's what the cryptographic program PGP uses to ensure 
that a public key really belongs to the person that it claims to.And 
history has shown the system, although not perfect, works pretty well 
most of the time, which is a hell of a lot better than most things work.

And by the way, I don't think Trump has spent even 20 minutes 
studying viral epidemiology or statistical theory in his entire life.

I more or less agree with everything you say. That is exactly why I 
worry that incidents such as the Lancet retraction are damaging to the 
web of trust.

Telmo

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.

To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/777296fb-a76b-4b8a-aef6-f8bb70c45aa4%40www.fastmail.com 
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/777296fb-a76b-4b8a-aef6-f8bb70c45aa4%40www.fastmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer> 

.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/834167470.18884.1596139329311%40mail.yahoo.com 
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/834167470.18884.1596139329311%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-07-30 Thread Lawrence Crowell

I am not going to pass judgment on this. I can't really do that. I can only 
say that this is a minority report. The general consensus I am hearing is 
that a compound that changes the pH of blood in a way that slows the 
progress of a protistan responsible for malaria has no influence on a 
corona virus.

LC

On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 3:02:12 PM UTC-5 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> Refute this Telmo- 
> https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study
>
> https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext
>
> One viewer here indicated this was not a study-but it is a study indeed 
> concluding the benefits of Hydro. 
>
> Now what do I think? If it works it works, and if it doesn't it doesn't. 
> Do the opponents of the old drug in question care if it works? Seemingly 
> no, they are just foaming at the mouth because Orange Dude endorsed it. If 
> it doesn't work, screw it. If it can help some people, keep it at hand. 
> What does John Clark care about? Orange Man Bad!  This has zero to do with 
> fighting the Wuhan flu. For the opponents of Orange Man nothing else 
> matters. Civil (US) Conflict? Next stop! Take care.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Telmo Menezes 
> To: John Clark ; 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Thu, Jul 30, 2020 2:28 pm
> Subject: Re: Sharpiegate
>
>
>
> Am Do, 30. Jul 2020, um 17:16, schrieb John Clark:
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:27 AM Telmo Menezes  
> wrote:
>
>
> > *I disapprove of Trump and everything he stands for as much as you do. 
> I detest him. He is an incompetent narcissist, and his election as the 
> president of the USA was a nightmare come true.*
>
>
> Truer words were never spoken! 
>
> > *I think that the current extreme political polarization of all things 
> is doing damage to science. A symptom of this is that the epistemological 
> status of things such as the efficacy of hydroxychloriquine became 
> impossible to determine for those not deeply involved in the field, even if 
> scientifically literate and able to follow the papers.*
>
>
> Crackpots, and in that I would include Trump supporters and the
> hydroxychloroquine cure COVID-19 people, don't just dispute well 
> established theories, they dispute the raw data itself. I've had otherwise 
> intelligent people tell me that every epidemiologist in the world is wrong, 
> and the entire scientific community is wrong, and even insist every bit of 
> data we have about COVID-19 is wrong. Why would they do that? Because if 
> the data was right they would have to radically change their worldview and 
> face the fact that Donald Trump is not doing a good job. Changing one's 
> worldview is quite painful for some people.
>
> Nobody can be knowledgeable about everything, so if the vast majority of 
> expert 
> specialists in the world on a very complicated subject like epidemiology, 
> agrees on something, people who have spent their life studying the subject, 
> then I think they are much more likely to be correct then you or I are 
> after we've only been studying the matter for 20 minutes or so. That's why 
> people read scientific journals and believe that what they say is probably 
> true even if they haven't personally carried out the experiments described 
> in them. People that we trust, because they have proven to be right in the 
> past, judge new research and if they think it's not valid they don't 
> publish it in their journals, and if they think it is valid then they do. 
> It's a web of trust, it's what the cryptographic program PGP uses to 
> ensure that a public key really belongs to the person that it claims to. 
> And history has shown the system, although not perfect, works pretty well 
> most of the time, which is a hell of a lot better than most things work.
>
> And by the way, I don't think Trump has spent even 20 minutes studying 
> viral epidemiology or statistical theory in his entire life. 
>
>
> I more or less agree with everything you say. That is exactly why I worry 
> that incidents such as the Lancet retraction are damaging to the web of 
> trust. 
>
>
> Telmo
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/777296fb-a76b-4b8a-aef6-f8bb70c45aa4%40www.fastmail.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/777296fb-a76b-4b8a-aef6-f8bb70c45aa4%40www.fastmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
>  
>

Re: Sharpiegate

Refute this Telmo-https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study
https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext
One viewer here indicated this was not a study-but it is a study indeed 
concluding the benefits of Hydro. 
Now what do I think? If it works it works, and if it doesn't it doesn't. Do the 
opponents of the old drug in question care if it works? Seemingly no, they are 
just foaming at the mouth because Orange Dude endorsed it. If it doesn't work, 
screw it. If it can help some people, keep it at hand. What does John Clark 
care about? Orange Man Bad!  This has zero to do with fighting the Wuhan flu. 
For the opponents of Orange Man nothing else matters. Civil (US) Conflict? Next 
stop! Take care.

-Original Message-
From: Telmo Menezes 
To: John Clark ; 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 

Sent: Thu, Jul 30, 2020 2:28 pm
Subject: Re: Sharpiegate

#yiv6743898688 p.yiv6743898688MsoNormal, #yiv6743898688 
p.yiv6743898688MsoNoSpacing{margin:0;}#yiv6743898688 p.yiv6743898688MsoNormal, 
#yiv6743898688 p.yiv6743898688MsoNoSpacing{margin:0;}

Am Do, 30. Jul 2020, um 17:16, schrieb John Clark:

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:27 AM Telmo Menezes  wrote:

> I disapprove of Trump and everything he stands for as much as you do. I 
> detest him. He is an incompetent narcissist, and his election as the 
> president of the USA was a nightmare come true.

Truer words were never spoken! 

> I think that the current extreme political polarization of all things is 
> doing damage to science. A symptom of this is that the epistemological status 
> of things such as the efficacy of hydroxychloriquine became impossible to 
> determine for those not deeply involved in the field, even if scientifically 
> literate and able to follow the papers.

Crackpots, and in that I would include Trump supporters and 
thehydroxychloroquine cure COVID-19 people, don't just dispute well established 
theories, they dispute the raw data itself. I've had otherwise intelligent 
people tell me that every epidemiologist in the world is wrong, and the entire 
scientific community is wrong, and even insist every bit of data we have about 
COVID-19 is wrong. Why would they do that? Because if the data was right they 
would have to radically change their worldview and face the fact that Donald 
Trump is not doing a good job. Changing one's worldview is quite painful for 
some people.

Nobody can be knowledgeable about everything, so if the vast majority of expert 
specialists in the world on a very complicated subject like epidemiology, 
agrees on something, people who have spent their life studying the subject, 
then I think they are much more likely to be correct then you or I are after 
we've only been studying the matter for 20 minutes or so. That's why people 
read scientific journals and believe that what they say is probably true even 
if they haven't personally carried out the experiments described in them. 
People that we trust, because they have proven to be right in the past, judge 
new research and if they think it's not valid they don't publish it in their 
journals, and if they think it is valid then they do. It's a web of trust, it's 
what the cryptographic program PGP uses to ensure that a public key really 
belongs to the person that it claims to. And history has shown the system, 
although not perfect, works pretty well most of the time, which is a hell of a 
lot better than most things work.

And by the way, I don't think Trump has spent even 20 minutes studying viral 
epidemiology or statistical theory in his entire life. 

I more or less agree with everything you say. That is exactly why I worry that 
incidents such as the Lancet retraction are damaging to the web of trust.

Telmo

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/777296fb-a76b-4b8a-aef6-f8bb70c45aa4%40www.fastmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/834167470.18884.1596139329311%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Sharpiegate

2020-07-30 Thread Telmo Menezes



Am Do, 30. Jul 2020, um 17:16, schrieb John Clark:
> 
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:27 AM Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> 
>> __
>> > ***I disapprove of Trump and everything he stands for as much as you do. I 
>> > detest him. He is an incompetent narcissist, and his election as the 
>> > president of the USA was a nightmare come true.*
> 
> Truer words were never spoken! 
> 
>> > *I think that the current extreme political polarization of all things is 
>> > doing damage to science. A symptom of this is that the epistemological 
>> > status of things such as the efficacy of hydroxychloriquine became 
>> > impossible to determine for those not deeply involved in the field, even 
>> > if scientifically literate and able to follow the papers.*
> 
> Crackpots, and in that I would include Trump supporters and 
> thehydroxychloroquine cure COVID-19 people, don't just dispute well 
> established theories, they dispute the raw data itself. I've had otherwise 
> intelligent people tell me that every epidemiologist in the world is wrong, 
> and the entire scientific community is wrong, and even insist every bit of 
> data we have about COVID-19 is wrong. Why would they do that? Because if the 
> data was right they would have to radically change their worldview and face 
> the fact that Donald Trump is not doing a good job. Changing one's worldview 
> is quite painful for some people.
> 
> Nobody can be knowledgeable about everything, so if the vast majority of 
> expert specialists in the world on a very complicated subject like 
> epidemiology, agrees on something, people who have spent their life studying 
> the subject, then I think they are much more likely to be correct then you or 
> I are after we've only been studying the matter for 20 minutes or so. That's 
> why people read scientific journals and believe that what they say is 
> probably true even if they haven't personally carried out the experiments 
> described in them. People that we trust, because they have proven to be right 
> in the past, judge new research and if they think it's not valid they don't 
> publish it in their journals, and if they think it is valid then they do. 
> It's a web of trust, it's what the cryptographic program PGP uses to ensure 
> that a public key really belongs to the person that it claims to. And history 
> has shown the system, although not perfect, works pretty well most of the 
> time, which is a hell of a lot better than most things work.
> 
> And by the way, I don't think Trump has spent even 20 minutes studying viral 
> epidemiology or statistical theory in his entire life. 

I more or less agree with everything you say. That is exactly why I worry that 
incidents such as the Lancet retraction are damaging to the web of trust.

Telmo

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/777296fb-a76b-4b8a-aef6-f8bb70c45aa4%40www.fastmail.com.

Re: Sharpiegate