quote:

Originally posted by Ironbutt:
However many confirmed cases of covid are identified through testing, there are probably AT LEAST ten times that number of people walking around, who had a mild case of covid & got over it, thinking it was just a cold, or flu.

I believe we saw early numbers supporting that when more widespread available testing was done in CA and other spots. However I think that talking point gets weaker and weaker with the passage of time and more and more testing.

Why? Because while that certainly could have been true back in Jan-Mar/Apr, I don't think someone who thinks they just have the flu and is showing flu-like symptoms isn't going to be tested today. That's no doubt what is driving up the % of positive tests of those tested as well as the overall positive test count.

I'd venture a guess that even the most staunch of the scamdemic town criers amongst us would get tested if they showed serious flu-like symptoms. They should since no matter your view on the inflation of the politics of the pandemic there are treatments available to lessen the duration and severity of the illness. Not taking advantage of that would be silly.

Twitter Locks Trump Jr Account For Posting Press Conference By Pro-Hydroxychloroquine Doctors

https://www.zerohedge.com/poli...ychloroquine-doctors

Twitter locked the account of Donald Trump Jr. for approximately 12 hours, after the president's son posted a viral video of doctors touting Hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19.

The video, which received over 14 million views before it was blacklisted and scrubbed by Facebook, Twitter and YouTube following a complaint by a New York Times employee, featured members of America's Frontline Doctors - a recently formed advocacy group which claims that "American life has fallen casualty to a massive disinformation campaign" against Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) - a decades-old malaria drug used by India and several other countries as part of their front-line treatment of the novel coronavirus, yet which has shown mixed efficacy in studies.

So are we getting our health information from Twitter, FB, and tic tok now?

I'm going to trust a doctor over a guy that plays with computers.

quote:

I'm going to trust a doctor over a guy that plays with computers.

I said the same thing back in early June. It was met with this rant:


"Yeah? Well, how do these trustworthy docs feel about IDIOTIC LEFTIST GOVERNORS AND BUREAUCRATS DESTROYING THE BEST ECONOMY ANYONE DRAWING BREATH RIGHT NOW WILL EVER SEE?

And how do they feel about all the ignorant, gullible sheep who allowed it to happen, and who actually support this absolute insanity?

"Middle ground"??? These America-hating and Trump-hating assholes have destroyed countless lives. Is that supposed to be their function??

Middle ground?? What a joke"

zip, somehow I do not think you are going to take this thread back through this again. But hey, it is just a guess.

Either you a have a short memory or got some new britches that need broke in. I'd leave it alone if I was you based on the last goround.

Zippy...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: erj_pilot,

quote:

Originally posted by zipriderson:
I said the same thing back in early June. It was met with this rant

That's me you're quoting, and you are playing with fire.

STOP playing the victim. Leave me out of your martyrdom. Fair warning- don't ever again do that. You are about to piss me off royally, and you are about to find out.

You don't like the prevailing opinion here. Well, y' know what? TOUGH SHIT

Your participation in this thread is not required, and if you can't stop with the "poor, abused me" crap, don't post in this thread. This is not the first time I've told you this, but it's certainly the last. I'm sick of your whining.

quote:

I believe we saw early numbers supporting that when more widespread available testing was done in CA and other spots. However I think that talking point gets weaker and weaker with the passage of time and more and more testing.

Why? Because while that certainly could have been true back in Jan-Mar/Apr, I don't think someone who thinks they just have the flu and is showing flu-like symptoms isn't going to be tested today. That's no doubt what is driving up the % of positive tests of those tested as well as the overall positive test count.

I think this your premise is correct but also consider the following from the CDC website:

"As of April 14, 2020, CDC case counts and death counts include both confirmed and probable cases and deaths." A probable case, again per the CDC, is when a patient presents with "[a]t least two of the following symptoms: fever (measured or subjective), chills, rigors, myalgia, headache, sore throat, new olfactory and taste disorder(s) OR At least one of the following symptoms: cough, shortness of breath, or difficulty breathing OR Severe respiratory illness with at least one of the following: Clinical or radiographic evidence of pneumonia, OR Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) AND No alternative more likely diagnosis."

If you go to the doctor with a fever and a headache, chills and a sore throat, or a cough, and there is no more likely diagnosis, you are counted as positive for COVID without laboratory testing. That impacts the numbers significantly because there are a lot of people (at least down here) who are going to the doctor but not getting tested (because they don't want to wait in line for 4-5 hours and then get the results 12-14 days later).

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:
Skins and Zippy...

Well then explain it to me like I'm really stupid.

If you think it's ok that the interwebz companies get to sensor doctors (and the son of our President) and form the narrative that the American people can hear great.

My point in case you didn't get it was these companies, and further the MSM should not be political actors and instead should provide a platform for people to speak or in the case of MSM objective information or mark things that are editorials as such.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
So are we getting our health information from Twitter, FB, and tic tok now?

I'm going to trust a doctor over a guy that plays with computers.

Twitter, FB, are nothing more than electronic conduits designed to allow people to disseminate information, quickly, effectively, to billions of people, at a reduced cost.

Twitter isn't sending out messages, people are sending messages out on Twitter, doctors, governments, entertainment people, everyday people.

The information one chooses to trust depends on from whom they are getting the information, not the delivery method.

If face to face with a physician is deemed the method someone chooses to accept delivery of information, that's their choice.

The method of accepting information shouldn't be reduced to denigrating others for choosing to get their information via a different medium.

HRK, I know what these services are. They are protected by Sec 230 and are to act like the phone company and allow exchange of ideas, speech, and expression. Instead they are acting as arbiters, allowing only ideas they agree with through, and blocking those that they don't agree with. This flies in the face of sec 230 and needs to stop. Twitter et al should not have the ability to limit the ideas I can see based on their views. Sec 230 needs to be reformed or these players need to act as an open platform for all.

quote:

Twitter, FB, are nothing more than electronic conduits designed to allow people to disseminate information, quickly, effectively, to billions of people, at a reduced cost.

Twitter isn't sending out messages, people are sending messages out on Twitter, doctors, governments, entertainment people, everyday people.

The information one chooses to trust depends on from whom they are getting the information, not the delivery method.

Except that information is getting censored or blocked by what you call "electronic conduits".
They are more than mere "conduits" when they decide what information can and cannot be transmitted or viewed.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
Well then explain it to me like I'm really stupid.

If you think it's ok that the interwebz companies get to sensor doctors (and the son of our President) and form the narrative that the American people can hear great.

My point in case you didn't get it was these companies, and further the MSM should not be political actors and instead should provide a platform for people to speak or in the case of MSM objective information or mark things that are editorials as such.

OK...you get the point. Your identity will summarily be removed from my post. I totally missed the sarcasm in your post that was castigating Twatter, Fakebook, et. al.

One point that might be getting convoluted is that (unfortunately) these platforms are now a permanent conduit to the spread of information. They are (again, unfortunately) a necessary evil for the world in which we now live. To discount them as a means of information works against "us". My interpretation of your post was that medical information has no business being disseminated on these platforms. Confusion on my part and I apologize.

My sincere apologies overall! I beg forgiveness...

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
HRK, I know what these services are. They are protected by Sec 230 and are to act like the phone company and allow exchange of ideas, speech, and expression. Instead they are acting as arbiters, allowing only ideas they agree with through, and blocking those that they don't agree with. This flies in the face of sec 230 and needs to stop. Twitter et al should not have the ability to limit the ideas I can see based on their views. Sec 230 needs to be reformed or these players need to act as an open platform for all.

No disagreement with that idea, to go further, big tech needs to be broken up, they have so much wealth they are running the country by proxy. Apple, MSFT, Google, Yahoo, Twitter Tesla, all need to be broken up.

Nonetheless, the post you made seemed to infer that getting the information from Twitter FB that the problem was the delivery source, not the information. The method of delivery is good, without it we wouldn't have Trumps comments, and many others because the press would simply censor them... and you'd never hear they were censored, as in the case of DJT Jr. or James Woods...

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Twitter, FB, are nothing more than electronic conduits designed to allow people to disseminate information, quickly, effectively, to billions of people, at a reduced cost.

Twitter isn't sending out messages, people are sending messages out on Twitter, doctors, governments, entertainment people, everyday people.

The information one chooses to trust depends on from whom they are getting the information, not the delivery method.

Except that information is getting censored or blocked by what you call "electronic conduits".
They are more than mere "conduits" when they decide what information can and cannot be transmitted or viewed.

100% correct chellim1. Large public platforms should not be removing or filtering info since they have no liability. They really like having it both ways.

quote:

100% correct chellim1. Large public platforms should not be removing or filtering info since they have no liability. They really like having it both ways.

Publisher vs platform, as has been noted MANY times, all these online outlets are playing both sides of the fence, and it's getting old. They can't be sued for content(like a platform), yet they edit/censor their content(like a publisher).

Sorry erj and HRK, I made a quick jab at them without clarifying it for people who aren't paying attention to the political censorship going on currently. I probably should have been clearer even for those tuned into it. Perfect timing, this video just dropped covering both the weaponization of media and is specific to this particular event.

There's an information war going on, we are currently losing.




Link to original video: https://youtu.be/bxXE0Txdzzo

Have to admit... having just joined the forum in early June, it took me a while to catch up on this thread. Thought I would lay out my 2-cents (worth about 1/2 that). Earlier this year I returned home from a business trip feeling like shit. Being the type of guy that only goes to the Dr. when I think I am about to “check out” I toughed it out for a week. Ended up in Urgent Care on a Sunday (out of breath just walking from living room to kitchen, cough that would not stop, and fever that would not go away). This happened when everyone was freaking out but no testing yet. My oxygen was low but okay so they gave me meds for cough, and mucus busters. 2 weeks latter, I finally started improving (meds had zero effect).

I am 90% sure I had it... 90% because no way in hell will they ever test me for it. Now, I am 58, decent health, and fit enough to walk a couple miles to find deer/elk scat. Whatever I had knocked me on my ass and I absolutely believe my mom or dad, for example would almost certainly not had as good an outcome. So for me... when I am going anywhere that will put me in contact with our elder population, I will wear a mask and soak up more sanitizer as an abundance of caution in case I could possibly be a carrier. I think that is just common courtesy to protect our elders as they have done a great deal for us and never asked anything in return.

For everyone else, I say getting it at this point is all but a certainty (eventually). If your scared of me not wearing a mask, you should be in a bubble somewhere avoiding all contact with the outside world... Maybe that’s where you belong. My son-in-law just flew in from Texas to visit his folks and me (yeah we get along). We had a great visit with no masks and all is well. My neighbor just returned from Florida on a week long trip with his girlfriend. We went to the range this past weekend together, masked to enter and exit range but mask free in side by side lanes making fun of each other’s accuracy . All is well with him and me.

To be perfectly clear... my 2-cents... you bet your ass it’s real... it can knock you on your ass... best case, a vaccine will be out a year from now... let it take its course, and we will achieve “herd immunity” by year’s end. For those still hanging on to the bullshit being spouted by media, think for just a moment, if you were a lefty looking to make our President look bad in an election year, what better way than to shit on our economy and blame him? Will they push for another shut down? You bet your ass they will try. We can not let that happen!

Done.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
Sorry erj and HRK, I made a quick jab at them without clarifying it for people who aren't paying attention to the political censorship going on currently. I probably should have been clearer even for those tuned into it. Perfect timing, this video just dropped covering both the weaponization of media and is specific to this particular event.

There's an information war going on, we are currently losing.

I wouldn't say losing. We are up against some major opposition though and something has to be done. It's amazing that it was taken down that quickly across all three platforms.

Good video posted by Skins2881 ^^^.

It references this Newsweek article:

The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It | Opinion

As professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, I have authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications and currently hold senior positions on the editorial boards of several leading journals. I am usually accustomed to advocating for positions within the mainstream of medicine, so have been flummoxed to find that, in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily. Fortunately, the situation can be reversed easily and quickly.

I am referring, of course, to the medication hydroxychloroquine. When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc.

On May 27, I published an article in the American Journal of Epidemiology (AJE) entitled, "Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis." That article, published in the world's leading epidemiology journal, analyzed five studies, demonstrating clear-cut and significant benefits to treated patients, plus other very large studies that showed the medication safety.

Physicians who have been using these medications in the face of widespread skepticism have been truly heroic. They have done what the science shows is best for their patients, often at great personal risk. I myself know of two doctors who have saved the lives of hundreds of patients with these medications, but are now fighting state medical boards to save their licenses and reputations. The cases against them are completely without scientific merit.

Since publication of my May 27 article, seven more studies have demonstrated similar benefit. In a lengthy follow-up letter, also published by AJE, I discuss these seven studies and renew my call for the immediate early use of hydroxychloroquine in high-risk patients. These seven studies include: an additional 400 high-risk patients treated by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, with zero deaths; four studies totaling almost 500 high-risk patients treated in nursing homes and clinics across the U.S., with no deaths; a controlled trial of more than 700 high-risk patients in Brazil, with significantly reduced risk of hospitalization and two deaths among 334 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine; and another study of 398 matched patients in France, also with significantly reduced hospitalization risk. Since my letter was published, even more doctors have reported to me their completely successful use.

My original article in the AJE is available free online, and I encourage readers—especially physicians, nurses, physician assistants and associates, and respiratory therapists—to search the title and read it. My follow-up letter is linked there to the original paper.

Beyond these studies of individual patients, we have seen what happens in large populations when these drugs are used. These have been "natural experiments." In the northern Brazil state of Pará, COVID-19 deaths were increasing exponentially. On April 6, the public hospital network purchased 75,000 doses of azithromycin and 90,000 doses of hydroxychloroquine. Over the next few weeks, authorities began distributing these medications to infected individuals. Even though new cases continued to occur, on May 22 the death rate started to plummet and is now about one-eighth what it was at the peak.

A reverse natural experiment happened in Switzerland. On May 27, the Swiss national government banned outpatient use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. Around June 10, COVID-19 deaths increased four-fold and remained elevated. On June 11, the Swiss government revoked the ban, and on June 23 the death rate reverted to what it had been beforehand. People who die from COVID-19 live about three to five weeks from the start of symptoms, which makes the evidence of a causal relation in these experiments strong. Both episodes suggest that a combination of hydroxychloroquine and its companion medications reduces mortality and should be immediately adopted as the new standard of care in high-risk patients.

Why has hydroxychloroquine been disregarded?

First, as all know, the medication has become highly politicized. For many, it is viewed as a marker of political identity, on both sides of the political spectrum. Nobody needs me to remind them that this is not how medicine should proceed. We must judge this medication strictly on the science. When doctors graduate from medical school, they formally promise to make the health and life of the patient their first consideration, without biases of race, religion, nationality, social standing—or political affiliation. Lives must come first.

Second, the drug has not been used properly in many studies. Hydroxychloroquine has shown major success when used early in high-risk people but, as one would expect for an antiviral, much less success when used late in the disease course. Even so, it has demonstrated significant benefit in large hospital studies in Michigan and New York City when started within the first 24 to 48 hours after admission.

In fact, as inexpensive, oral and widely available medications, and a nutritional supplement, the combination of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin or doxycycline, and zinc are well-suited for early treatment in the outpatient setting. The combination should be prescribed in high-risk patients immediately upon clinical suspicion of COVID-19 disease, without waiting for results of testing. Delays in waiting before starting the medications can reduce their efficacy.

Third, concerns have been raised by the FDA and others about risks of cardiac arrhythmia, especially when hydroxychloroquine is given in combination with azithromycin. The FDA based its comments on data in its FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. This reporting system captured up to a thousand cases of arrhythmias attributed to hydroxychloroquine use. In fact, the number is likely higher than that, since the reporting system, which requires physicians or patients to initiate contact with the FDA, appreciably undercounts drug side effects.

But what the FDA did not announce is that these adverse events were generated from tens of millions of patient uses of hydroxychloroquine for long periods of time, often for the chronic treatment of lupus or rheumatoid arthritis. Even if the true rates of arrhythmia are ten-fold higher than those reported, the harms would be minuscule compared to the mortality occurring right now in inadequately treated high-risk COVID-19 patients. This fact is proven by an Oxford University study of more than 320,000 older patients taking both hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, who had arrhythmia excess death rates of less than 9/100,000 users, as I discuss in my May 27 paper cited above. A new paper in the American Journal of Medicine by established cardiologists around the world fully agrees with this.

In the future, I believe this misbegotten episode regarding hydroxychloroquine will be studied by sociologists of medicine as a classic example of how extra-scientific factors overrode clear-cut medical evidence. But for now, reality demands a clear, scientific eye on the evidence and where it points. For the sake of high-risk patients, for the sake of our parents and grandparents, for the sake of the unemployed, for our economy and for our polity, especially those disproportionally affected, we must start treating immediately.

LINK