Jump to content

Thanks for visiting BtownBanners.com!  We noticed you have AdBlock enabled.  While ads can be annoying, we utilize them to provide these forums free of charge to you!  Please consider removing your AdBlock for BtownBanners or consider signing up to donate and help BtownBanners stay alive!  Thank you!

Class of '66 Old Fart

Coronavirus and Its Impact

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Old Friend said:

Since you don't even know what drug it was, I doubt you're really interested in dialogue about it and instead favor your politics   I also doubt you're interested in the truth because you strike me as yet one more guy who doesn't come here for any reason other than to stir the pot.  I love guys like you.  You're easy    The crickets after the post you MEANT to grab are deafening, and I'm very happy to shove this across the table at YOU, too. 

Quackery.  That's cute. I do love (and you people are very consistent) the labels and complete dismissal of information and people you don't agree with because your media tells you it's....quackery.  Like I said....cute.

Since you asked (and I bet this isn't what you meant to imply with your divisive and condescending tone) :  HCQ in its design breaks down a cellular barrier and lets zinc into the cell.  Zinc is being utilized in every therapy being trialed at this point.  Some examples of  "how it turned out? "  HCQ is being used at Yale, there is a randomized trial ongoing at Henry Ford  Health System in Detroit,  St. Francis Network in NY, Orange County network in NY, it's prescribed for every COVID patient in Turkey and has been shown to either slow or eliminate ICU admissions.  A large doctor's group in Brazil posted a study over the weekend showing HCQ helped 91.6% of COVID patients, Dr. Michael Robb and Dr. Jane Orient, leaders in the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons said TODAY "We believe there is clear and convincing evidence of benefit both pre and post exposure (of use of HCQ)," meaning it may also be a prophylactic.  Its being used successfully for the first time with older patients at a nursing home in Texas.  Early adoption of HCQ in Italian hospitals showed unequivocal earlier release from hospitals compared to those who didn't receive it.  It was used in a trial in New Brisnwick, CA with 118 patients. All 118 recovered.  No deaths.  No ICU admissions.

 Do you need MORE examples of "how it turned out?"    And surely you could have looked all of this up yourself, but it's just easier (and lazier and more predictable) to make fun of data your media won't give you.   You really should look this stuff up, though.  It's fun to learn accuracy instead of parroting.  Cute word though.  I like "quackery."  But if you want the REAL truth?  Read this.  COVID is a SARS virus.  In 2005 Dr. Fauci and others were very high on HCQ. Now?  It's Remdisavir.  You can draw your own conclusions, right?   https://www.dropbox.com/s/hy4zovox820vmpu/3G13018 50 micron.docx?dl=0

Sources?  Immunologists.  You think politicians are just opening things up because they feel like it?  How dumb are you?   Seriously....it's like you people just read what the media tells you and regurgitate it.  Think for yourself.  Try it.  Just one time.  What disinformation are you speaking of?  Why do I KNOW it's really "information you don't have" or information you don't agree with.    What else ya' got?  

The shade you are throwing on Fauci comes from Laura Ingraham:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/02/donald-trump-coronavirus-remdesivir-229765

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Redleader said:

The shade you are throwing on Fauci comes from Laura Ingraham:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/02/donald-trump-coronavirus-remdesivir-229765

Remdisiver is great.  But you have one study, completed by it's maker Gilead (potential conflict?), showing positive results in severely ill patients.  It's intravenous and expensive.  Not really an option for large numbers of the population.  Hydroxy on the other hand is cheap and easily administered thru local pharmacies.  If it has any effect at all early in the disease then it helps keep people out of the hospital.  Unfortunately, because of all the BS surrounding it, they are having trouble getting people enrolled in the studies.  

https://www.wired.com/story/the-info-war-over-chloroquine-has-slowed-covid-19-science/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw this morning that Dr. Michael Osterholm said the US population is 5-15% infected and it's the number one cause of death.  He promised this country will see a 60-70% infection rate.  Not sure where he got those numbers but I believe him over our current leadership.  Take it for what it is.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Golfman25 said:

Remdisiver is great.  But you have one study, completed by it's maker Gilead (potential conflict?), showing positive results in severely ill patients.  It's intravenous and expensive.  Not really an option for large numbers of the population.  Hydroxy on the other hand is cheap and easily administered thru local pharmacies.  If it has any effect at all early in the disease then it helps keep people out of the hospital.  Unfortunately, because of all the BS surrounding it, they are having trouble getting people enrolled in the studies.  

https://www.wired.com/story/the-info-war-over-chloroquine-has-slowed-covid-19-science/

Thank you for the link.  My apologies to Old Friend and anyone else supporting trials of this drug.  Let's test the hell out of it.

From the end:

 

"The president’s unjustified early enthusiasm for hydroxychloroquine (and his equally unjustified apparent abandonment of the idea) didn’t translate into a centralized, rapid-response study to determine the actual truth. The National Institutes of Health didn’t spin one up until the first week of April, a month after Boulware launched his. “Ideally, you would think, this is a national emergency and there would be coordination centrally, at the federal government level,” Boulware says. “The UK put together a nationwide trial for treatment. We weren’t able to do that.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The mods are giving a looooong leash in this thread, but:
Any posts that are entirely dedicated to attacking other posters will be hidden.
I’m trying not to be the babysitter/editor; however, posts that have substance yet still mix in personal attacks are gonna be deleted in full too if it is a trend.
Because in the long haul, the board will be better off if we don’t veer off into allowing that crap.
 Thanks! 
 

Kisses! Lol


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the results hold up under a much larger sample size, this would be an important development.

Roche received approval from the Food and Drug Administration to begin shipping tens of millions of coronavirus tests around the world to confirm the presence of antibodies in the blood of persons who formerly tested positive for the disease.  Roche said the test has a 99%+ accuracy rate and has already been used on more than five thousand samples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Class of '66 Old Fart said:

If the results hold up under a much larger sample size, this would be an important development.

Roche received approval from the Food and Drug Administration to begin shipping tens of millions of coronavirus tests around the world to confirm the presence of antibodies in the blood of persons who formerly tested positive for the disease.  Roche said the test has a 99%+ accuracy rate and has already been used on more than five thousand samples.

Awesome news.  Just need to figure out if antibodies mean permanent immunity, temporary, or something else.  Fingers crossed for permanent immunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Redleader said:

Sure name the "immunologists".  Or did Fox not provide that to you.

THERE it is.  I was wondering when you'd bring that out.  That response is what, page 1 from your playbook?   That's the equivalent of saying "my dad can beat up your dad."   Not one thing I gave you above came from Fox.   But I know that's easier...just say "Fox" as if it's some dirty word because YOU prefer another network who lies to you and THEY tell you how awful it is.   I bet you haven't watched even a second of Fox News, maybe in your life.  But you're told how awful it is, so you run with it.  The truth lies elsewhere, Grasshopper.  

 Here's the secret.  ALL of those networks are entertainment first.  ALL of them preach to their own choir.  They ALL suck, and none of them are truly "news.".  Hint : try "Knowhere" and other more objective sources.  I'll say this again.   Think.  For.   Yourself.    Look things up.  Read.  Educate yourself.  Listen to doctors.  Listen to economists.  Listen to people who - every day - speak on behalf of the medical side of this and the economic side.  It's actually a fascinating time in our lives.  You should do yourself a favor and get away from your politics and actually learn what's going on around you.

Bringing it back to the easiest possible comeback (Fox) is pathetic.  You surely are better than that, right?   I said above your media doesn't tell you everything and certainly doesn't give you "truth."  And they don't.  But at least I was gracious enough to provide a list of examples which answered your question.  And THIS is the best you can come up with?   You can't debate when I answer you so you go to the easiest possible comeback that has about as much substance as water vapor.  You can't do better than that because YOUR media, whoever that is hasn't given you ammunition other than "Fox = bad?."   Somehow referencing Fox is an end game, regardless of the fact that nothing I gave you came from there?  (Again, you can look everything up)  

It's not up to me to get YOU information.  There is a ton of it out there....surely you know how to use the Google, right?   Or....are you afraid because you might find information you don't agree with and it might challenge you intellectually?

Out of respect for the mods, that's all I'll say, except you can find the information you asked for.  If you're willing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
THERE it is.  I was wondering when you'd bring that out.  That response is what, page 1 from your playbook?   That's the equivalent of saying "my dad can beat up your dad."   Not one thing I gave you above came from Fox.   But I know that's easier...just say "Fox" as if it's some dirty word because YOU prefer another network who lies to you and THEY tell you how awful it is.   I bet you haven't watched even a second of Fox News, maybe in your life.  But you're told how awful it is, so you run with it.  The truth lies elsewhere, Grasshopper.  

 Here's the secret.  ALL of those networks are entertainment first.  ALL of them preach to their own choir.  They ALL suck, and none of them are truly "news.".  Hint : try "Knowhere" and other more objective sources.  I'll say this again.   Think.  For.   Yourself.    Look things up.  Read.  Educate yourself.  Listen to doctors.  Listen to economists.  Listen to people who - every day - speak on behalf of the medical side of this and the economic side.  It's actually a fascinating time in our lives.  You should do yourself a favor and get away from your politics and actually learn what's going on around you.

Bringing it back to the easiest possible comeback (Fox) is pathetic.  You surely are better than that, right?   I said above your media doesn't tell you everything and certainly doesn't give you "truth."  And they don't. 

So. How do YOU know they don’t tell him the truth? Lol cause your truth is different and it’s full? I am cool with the pissing and moaning but I don’t get that. You are telling him to get away from the politics and in the same post tell him his media lies to him. Lmfao really? I don’t watch Fox or CNN but either side that ultimately says that as a de facto answer isn’t being truthful with themselves they are open to listening to anything. I can find 100 articles saying both sides are wrong. Doesn’t mean I am the keeper of the truth. Before you tell me you said both sides were entertainment, cause I know it’s coming, your words after don’t say FOX is lying. You explicitly tell someone else their station you perceive they watch is lying because You don’t agree with them. You are straight up guilty of what you are trying to lecture someone else on. That’s the part I wish both sides of this argument would take the time to understand. Not one person on here has the “truth”. I sure as hell cant get it from our president. I sure as hell won’t get it from cable news. And I sure as hell won’t find it on here in a place where people try lecturing me on things I have actually worked around for close to 15 years. So where does that leave us? In the words of Aloha, I guess we are all just ****ed and should leave well enough alone here.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mdn82 said:

So. How do YOU know they don’t tell him the truth? Lol cause your truth is different and it’s full? I am cool with the pissing and moaning but I don’t get that. You are telling him to get away from the politics and in the same post tell him his media lies to him. Lmfao really? I don’t watch Fox or CNN but either side that ultimately says that as a de facto answer isn’t being truthful with themselves they are open to listening to anything. I can find 100 articles saying both sides are wrong. Doesn’t mean I am the keeper of the truth. Before you tell me you said both sides were entertainment, cause I know it’s coming, your words after don’t say FOX is lying. You explicitly tell someone else their station you perceive they watch is lying because You don’t agree with them. You are straight up guilty of what you are trying to lecture someone else on. That’s the part I wish both sides of this argument would take the time to understand. Not one person on here has the “truth”. I sure as hell cant get it from our president. I sure as hell won’t get it from cable news. And I sure as hell won’t find it on here in a place where people try lecturing me on things I have actually worked around for close to 15 years. So where does that leave us? In the words of Aloha, I guess we are all just ****ed and should leave well enough alone here.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

I don't quite understand your point because I don't get my information from Fox.  I wasn't pitting or favoring one over the other.  I said 3 times they ALL (networks) suck and pander to their audience.   Which means I agree with you when you say "both sides are wrong."   I never said Fox was the truth; but I did say to read and listen to several sources, none of which are Fox News or any other network which I said are entertainment.   Help me understand your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't quite understand your point because I don't get my information from Fox.  I wasn't pitting or favoring one over the other.  I said 3 times they ALL (networks) suck and pander to their audience.   Which means I agree with you when you say "both sides are wrong."   I never said Fox was the truth; but I did say to read and listen to several sources, none of which are Fox News or any other network which I said are entertainment.   Help me understand your point.

So let me rephrase that. How do you find all of these moderate doctors, economists, etc. that tell the truth and nobody knows anything? You are telling another man his media is lying to him. How are you of all people able to come to that conclusion? I mean your sources wouldn’t be biased like his right? You aren’t skewing the searches to find the data you want to find right? Like I said I can easily find many articles to go in either direction. How are you of all people able to find the unbiased truth others can’t? Because when you don’t agree with them, it turns into where others get their info from is lying. If you don’t understand what I am asking, then forget it. What I am asking is not something you are wanting to understand. I am not trying to be a dick, because both sides are this way. You just happened to type it out in a very direct way that acts like the dude is the biggest ******* idiot in the world. Just curious why?


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Old Friend said:

THERE it is.  I was wondering when you'd bring that out.  That response is what, page 1 from your playbook?   That's the equivalent of saying "my dad can beat up your dad."   Not one thing I gave you above came from Fox.   But I know that's easier...just say "Fox" as if it's some dirty word because YOU prefer another network who lies to you and THEY tell you how awful it is.   I bet you haven't watched even a second of Fox News, maybe in your life.  But you're told how awful it is, so you run with it.  The truth lies elsewhere, Grasshopper.  

 Here's the secret.  ALL of those networks are entertainment first.  ALL of them preach to their own choir.  They ALL suck, and none of them are truly "news.".  Hint : try "Knowhere" and other more objective sources.  I'll say this again.   Think.  For.   Yourself.    Look things up.  Read.  Educate yourself.  Listen to doctors.  Listen to economists.  Listen to people who - every day - speak on behalf of the medical side of this and the economic side.  It's actually a fascinating time in our lives.  You should do yourself a favor and get away from your politics and actually learn what's going on around you.

Bringing it back to the easiest possible comeback (Fox) is pathetic.  You surely are better than that, right?   I said above your media doesn't tell you everything and certainly doesn't give you "truth."  And they don't.  But at least I was gracious enough to provide a list of examples which answered your question.  And THIS is the best you can come up with?   You can't debate when I answer you so you go to the easiest possible comeback that has about as much substance as water vapor.  You can't do better than that because YOUR media, whoever that is hasn't given you ammunition other than "Fox = bad?."   Somehow referencing Fox is an end game, regardless of the fact that nothing I gave you came from there?  (Again, you can look everything up)  

It's not up to me to get YOU information.  There is a ton of it out there....surely you know how to use the Google, right?   Or....are you afraid because you might find information you don't agree with and it might challenge you intellectually?

Out of respect for the mods, that's all I'll say, except you can find the information you asked for.  If you're willing.  

Agree with you wholeheartedly.  Absolutely it's all entertainment.  I've spent 23 years listening to Limbaugh, Levin, Ingraham, Savage, Neil Boortz, Greg Garrison, Mike Pence sub in for garrison, Andy Katz.  Hannity not so much, just style issues really.   Levin is my favorite, because of the Larry David like personality.  He usually has solid analysis to back up his claim.  No liberal analogues cause they all suck at radio and making coherent arguments.

Maddow is all propaganda.  All networks are.  They are more overt now.  Fox was funner to watch when the bias was more subtle.

I have not heard of Knowhere.  I'll check it out.  Thank you for that.

Chuck Schumer and Pelosi have been horrific.  What have they done so far?  Sniped from the sidelines and complain that Mitch stole their toy again?  I saw the weakness and lack of compass in the left long ago.  They have not gotten any better over the years.  They lost to Donald Trump.  Let that sink in.  Literally put forward the only candidate that could have lost.  Worst candidate since McCain.

I already get my information from reading.  Mostly what Drudge curates for me.  I don't watch "news" any more, because I refuse to be anyone's leming.

I'm sorry that pointed out that I thought your opinions mirror what is coming from what I believe to be right wing propagandists.  I've spent a lot hours absorbing it over the years and call them like I seem them.  Looks like I could be wrong.

The tragic American governmental response (right, left, state, fed) confirms what I have believed for a few years now.

None of the politicians give a damn about us.  They have reached the equivalent of the MLB, NBA, or NFL in their field.  They are all playing for that next contract.  It's all perpetuating their personal enrichment.  Millions to come after with board appointments, speaking gigs, and consulting fees.  By the way, they are only entertainers anymore.  The waste of time Impeachment trial proved that.

 

 

Edited by Redleader
Needed clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, mdn82 said:


So let me rephrase that. How do you find all of these moderate doctors, economists, etc. that tell the truth and nobody knows anything? You are telling another man his media is lying to him. How are you of all people able to come to that conclusion? I mean your sources wouldn’t be biased like his right? You aren’t skewing the searches to find the data you want to find right? Like I said I can easily find many articles to go in either direction. How are you of all people able to find the unbiased truth others can’t? Because when you don’t agree with them, it turns into where others get their info from is lying. If you don’t understand what I am asking, then forget it. What I am asking is not something you are wanting to understand. I am not trying to be a dick, because both sides are this way. You just happened to type it out in a very direct way that acts like the dude is the biggest ******* idiot in the world. Just curious why?


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

A doctor on the media is not the media.  Most of what I looked up is data directly from hospitals, etc.  Anyone can look up what's happening at Yale. If you want to have the discussion that says that information might be false because of the media, I suppose we can have it, but if we assume there is no truth, then nobody's ever going to make a salient point because truth is a myth.   There are ongoing studies at Yale.  That's a fact.  It also means SOME doctors at Yale believe there is clinical relevance. The fact that HCQ is being used to treat every patient in Turkey is also a fact....which anyone can look up.  Same as every other answer I gave him relative to his "quackery" comment.   And he comes back with "Fox."  None of that came from Fox....and he can look it up as easily as I can.  

I typed the way I did because of his tone toward me ("how'd the quackery turn out," etc).  I'm sure I came across as a d*ck.  Good.  I meant to in that case.  Is anyone responding to him saying he did?  Because he did.  So does BC in almost every post.  I couldn't care less what they think of me, nor anyone else who has only a snapshot.  I'm brutally honest and don't have much of a filter.  I do believe what I write and my style can be interpreted negatively if that's how someone wants to see it.  Been that way for several years and I have a lot more support than detraction, so I don't know why I'd change.  But those who ask ME for examples never seem to have a response when I give them examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A doctor on the media is not the media.  Most of what I looked up is data directly from hospitals, etc.  Anyone can look up what's happening at Yale. If you want to have the discussion that says that information might be false because of the media, I suppose we can have it, but if we assume there is no truth, then nobody's ever going to make a salient point because truth is a myth.   There are ongoing studies at Yale.  That's a fact.  It also means SOME doctors at Yale believe there is clinical relevance. The fact that HCQ is being used to treat every patient in Turkey is also a fact....which anyone can look up.  Same as every other answer I gave him relative to his "quackery" comment.   And he comes back with "Fox."  None of that came from Fox....and he can look it up as easily as I can.  
I typed the way I did because of his tone toward me ("how'd the quackery turn out," etc).  I'm sure I came across as a d*ck.  Good.  I meant to in that case.  Is anyone responding to him saying he did?  Because he did.  So does BC in almost every post.  I couldn't care less what they think of me, nor anyone else who has only a snapshot.  I'm brutally honest and don't have much of a filter.  I do believe what I write and my style can be interpreted negatively if that's how someone wants to see it.  Been that way for several years and I have a lot more support than detraction, so I don't know why I'd change.  But those who ask ME for examples never seem to have a response when I give them examples.

Thank you for the response.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, mdn82 said:


Thank you for the response.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Of course.   You and I don't always see eye to eye, but I think it's only been uncivil once.   Happy to discuss.

Edit :  In my immediate world, I have an anesthesiologist, a physician who did a rotation through pulmonology, an endocrinologist, and a respiratory therapist.  I spent over 20 years in medical sales, much of it in ICU/ER/OR environment, so I've been around it a lot.  I don't need media to get as much information as I want about viruses or how the human immune system works.   So when questions come at me which are nothing but personal shots at my credibility or from a political slant which hasn't provided the poster the same information I happen to have, I sort of laugh...and push back.   When I DO push back, the results are exactly as you see above because there's not much more they can say when their questions and attacks are challenged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Redleader said:

Agree with you wholeheartedly.  Absolutely it's all entertainment.  I've spent 23 years listening to Limbaugh, Levin, Ingraham, Savage, Neil Boortz, Greg Garrison, Mike Pence sub in for garrison, Andy Katz.  Hannity not so much, just style issues really.   Levin is my favorite, because of the Larry David like personality.  He usually has solid analysis to back up his claim.  No liberal analogues cause they all suck at radio and making coherent arguments.

Maddow is all propaganda.  All networks are.  They are more overt now.  Fox was funner to watch when the bias was more subtle.

I have not heard of Knowhere.  I'll check it out.  Thank you for that.

Chuck Schumer and Pelosi have been horrific.  What have they done so far?  Sniped from the sidelines and complain that Mitch stole their toy again?  I saw the weakness and lack of compass in the left long ago.  They have not gotten any better over the years.  They lost to Donald Trump.  Let that sink in.  Literally put forward the only candidate that could have lost.  Worst candidate since McCain.

I already get my information from reading.  Mostly what Drudge curates for me.  I don't watch "news" any more, because I refuse to be anyone's leming.

I'm sorry that pointed out that I thought your opinions mirror what is coming from what I believe to be right wing propagandists.  I've spent a lot hours absorbing it over the years and call them like I seem them.  Looks like I could be wrong.

The tragic American governmental response (right, left, state, fed) confirms what I have believed for a few years now.

None of the politicians give a damn about us.  They have reached the equivalent of the MLB, NBA, or NFL in their field.  They are all playing for that next contract.  It's all perpetuating their personal enrichment.  Millions to come after with board appointments, speaking gigs, and consulting fees.  By the way, they are only entertainers anymore.  The waste of time Impeachment trial proved that.

 

 

Great post!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not totally off topic but has anybody heard if-when, what plans etc are being made to open up baseball season?


Sent from my iPad using BtownBanners

What I read the other day second spring training is looking like June 10 and season begins July 1. Sounded like they will go into November. Also sounds like spring training would be at their home parks and not Florida or Arizona.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Old Friend said:

Of course.   You and I don't always see eye to eye, but I think it's only been uncivil once.   Happy to discuss.

Edit :  In my immediate world, I have an anesthesiologist, a physician who did a rotation through pulmonology, an endocrinologist, and a respiratory therapist.  I spent over 20 years in medical sales, much of it in ICU/ER/OR environment, so I've been around it a lot.  I don't need media to get as much information as I want about viruses or how the human immune system works.   So when questions come at me which are nothing but personal shots at my credibility or from a political slant which hasn't provided the poster the same information I happen to have, I sort of laugh...and push back.   When I DO push back, the results are exactly as you see above because there's not much more they can say when their questions and attacks are challenged.

Sorry for the political slant.  Glad you pushed back.  I responded to your post with more detail, and tried to bring a little more than a cheap swipe:

Since you don't even know what drug it was, I doubt you're really interested in dialogue about it and instead favor your politics   I also doubt you're interested in the truth because you strike me as yet one more guy who doesn't come here for any reason other than to stir the pot.  I love guys like you.  You're easy    The crickets after the post you MEANT to grab are deafening, and I'm very happy to shove this across the table at YOU, too.

Sorry for the Crickets after the post.  Really busy right now working in manufacturing. I am very blessed, and have not had the time to devote to a proper response.  Poor form on my part.  Again, sorry for the laziness.  I am now in front of a laptop, and not a phone on the side, the other hand is untied from behind my back, and you now have my focus.  

Got me on the incorrect spelling of the drug, I let autocorrect drive on that one.  Guilty as charged.

Quackery.  That's cute. I do love (and you people are very consistent) the labels and complete dismissal of information and people you don't agree with because your media tells you it's....quackery.  Like I said....cute.

Another good point.  It is a “cute” word.  Its very catchy and sort of maddowy, and gives off the feeling that the subject is ridiculous.  Better choice next time.

Since you asked (and I bet this isn't what you meant to imply with your divisive and condescending tone) :  HCQ in its design breaks down a cellular barrier and lets zinc into the cell.  Zinc is being utilized in every therapy being trialed at this point.  Some examples of  "how it turned out? "  : HCQ is being used at Yale, there is a randomized trial ongoing at Henry Ford  Health System in Detroit,  St. Francis Network in NY, Orange County network in NY, it's prescribed for every COVID patient in Turkey and has been shown to either slow or eliminate ICU admissions.  A large doctor's group in Brazil posted a study over the weekend showing HCQ helped 91.6% of COVID patients, Dr. Michael Robb and Dr. Jane Orient, leaders in the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons said TODAY "We believe there is clear and convincing evidence of benefit both pre and post exposure (of use of HCQ)," meaning it may also be a prophylactic.  Its being used successfully for the first time with older patients at a nursing home in Texas.  Early adoption of HCQ in Italian hospitals showed unequivocal earlier release from hospitals compared to those who didn't receive it.  It was used in a trial in New Brisnwick, CA with 118 patients. All 118 recovered.  No deaths.  No ICU admissions.

 Do you need MORE examples of "how it turned out?"    And surely you could have looked all of this up yourself, but it's just easier (and lazier and more predictable) to make fun of data your media won't give you.   You really should look this stuff up, though.  It's fun to learn accuracy instead of parroting.  Cute word though.  I like "quackery."  But if you want the REAL truth?  Read this.  COVID is a SARS virus.  In 2005 Dr. Fauci and others were very high on HCQ. Now?  It's Remdisavir.  You can draw your own conclusions, right?   https://www.dropbox.com/s/hy4zovox820vmpu/3G13018 50 micron.docx?dl=0

Great summary of some very detailed information.  I hope it works.  Your right, cheap shot, and bad on me for assuming that this was dead in the water and to have not followed the rest of the story.  Thank you for opening my eyes.  I'll take some time with these names and places and bring myself back up to speed.

I don’t understand the Dropbox thing still.  Do you care to enlighten me?  It has some graphs and stuff but I am not sure what is proving.

Sources?  Immunologists.  You think politicians are just opening things up because they feel like it?  How dumb are you?   Seriously....it's like you people just read what the media tells you and regurgitate it.  Think for yourself.  Try it.  Just one time.  What disinformation are you speaking of?  Why do I KNOW it's really "information you don't have" or information you don't agree with.    What else ya' got?

I thought the decreased immunity claim came from the Bakersfield physicians.  Are you speaking of your circle of friends when you say immunologists?  I am honestly asking because google searches of “immunity decreased” along with “shelter in place” or “quarantine” are coming up empty.  I would like to know more and can not find any information that says one way or the other.

I think politicians are opening up based upon a calculation of how many deaths are acceptable over a period of time weighed against all of the needs and wants of the entire states population not being met during this “shutdown” period.  It’s a terrible, unenviable decision for a leader to have to make.

There were guidelines for opening up that were published by the CDC.  States seem to be adopting those in varying degree.  Why can’t these guidelines be made mandatory and everyone follows the same standard?

Everyone seems to agree that monitoring as places open up and pulling back if there is an outbreak is a good idea.

What is the standard for making these decisions? 

In my mind it is deaths/period of time vs certain needs and wants met. 

The big moral question is what is/are the proper threshold(s)?

I don’t see a standard.  That is why we are debating in your case and swiping in mine.  There is a vacuum of leadership at the Federal level.  How many times has this phrase been uttered in the last 30 years?  This isn’t a right/left issue to me.  This is a freaking problem.  We are absolutely rudderless in Congress and the White House.  Tell us what to do and we will do it.  We are Americans, we can conquer anything, but we need a direction to pull in.

I don’t like the argument of saying that people are going to die if we continue to follow the isolation guidelines.  It makes it seem like it is a one-to-one give and take of folks perishing.  We can and should put every effort towards supporting those who are in abusive, suicidal, medical, shelter, and food need right now situations.  Moratorium on evictions or foreclosures.  Stop all mortgage and rent payments.  US, landlords, or employers pony up.

But putting forth the argument that people are suffering, and we can’t let them suffer, so we need to open up because someone is going to die anyways, seems to lack nuance.  It frames the argument in an either/or choice when that is not the case.  We can do other things while we are isolated to support our neighbors from a corporate, community, government, and personal perspective. 

I put my stake in the ground on waiting until we have better a better handle on all of these issues, to make such grave decisions. But I am conservative by nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×