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

Just now, JSHoosier said:

There's still smaller studies saying it doesn't help.  Only anecdotes and the orange one's overblown ego saying it works.

Are you making this political again! smh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's still smaller studies saying it doesn't help.  Only anecdotes and the orange one's overblown ego saying it works.

You should probably be asking yourself why it was retracted and why the study was pushed so hard to begin with.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:


You should probably be asking yourself why it was retracted and why the study was pushed so hard to begin with.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Don’t have to ask the authors said why.  Did you not even read the link. Lol I know you didn’t 
 

The authors couldn’t independently verify the data.  
 

That doesn’t prove that the opposite of what the study concluded is actually true. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:


You should probably be asking yourself why it was retracted and why the study was pushed so hard to begin with.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

I'd already read that article, they couldn't indepently verify the results.  There are still other, granted smaller, studies showing similar results.  Again, studies vs anecdotes.  Our approach should be science and health driven, right now the science isn't on your side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, JSHoosier said:

I'd already read that article, they couldn't indepently verify the results.  There are still other, granted smaller, studies showing similar results.  Again, studies vs anecdotes.  Our approach should be science and health driven, right now the science isn't on your side.

It's not studies vs anecdotes.  It's studies vs. studies.  None of which meet the gold standard.  Unfortunately, what we don't have yet is randomized controlled studies.  And due to the politics it doesn't look like we'll get there.  

Share this post


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

It's not studies vs anecdotes.  It's studies vs. studies.  None of which meet the gold standard.  Unfortunately, what we don't have yet is randomized controlled studies.  And due to the politics it doesn't look like we'll get there.  

Oh I’m sorry where are the studies that say it works?  Are they next to the ones that we’re stopped midway thru because of concerns about the participants health?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Golfman25 said:

It's not studies vs anecdotes.  It's studies vs. studies.  None of which meet the gold standard.  Unfortunately, what we don't have yet is randomized controlled studies.  And due to the politics it doesn't look like we'll get there.  

What studies say it works?  'So and so said they saw success' is an anecdote, that's all I've seen.

None of what we have is ideal, I won't argue otherwise, but it's all we've got and it says to be extremely cautious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Brass Cannon said:

Oh I’m sorry where are the studies that say it works?  Are they next to the ones that we’re stopped midway thru because of concerns about the participants health?

To me, the bigger question is why are we not studying this more when it has been shown to work for similar viruses in the past? Instead, the powers that be are pushing for a vaccine. Coronaviruses have been around since the '60's and there hasn't been a successful vaccine yet. So instead of testing a possible solution that already exists, we are counting on a RNA modifying vaccine for a virus (first time ever) that has been wildly unsuccessful in animal trials. Why?

I get the whole idea that these have to be trialed in double blind studies to prove their effectiveness and that people with political or financial ties should not be trusted. Let's just make sure we use the same criteria when the vaccine comes out. Will there be a double blind study? Will all of the government officials and advisors that have financial interests suddenly be ignored?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that irks so many is that when Trump talks about something the media does not discuss pros and cons they vilify. So this study comes out as “proof” it is bad and now despite being discredited MSNBC and CNN will continue to act as if true and will snidely throw comments in about how science proved him wrong.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 8bucks said:

The thing that irks so many is that when Trump talks about something the media does not discuss pros and cons they vilify. So this study comes out as “proof” it is bad and now despite being discredited MSNBC and CNN will continue to act as if true and will snidely throw comments in about how science proved him wrong.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

 

There were small studies before this one, it was just the largest (by far) and latest not the only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, bigrod said:

To me, the bigger question is why are we not studying this more when it has been shown to work for similar viruses in the past? Instead, the powers that be are pushing for a vaccine. Coronaviruses have been around since the '60's and there hasn't been a successful vaccine yet. So instead of testing a possible solution that already exists, we are counting on a RNA modifying vaccine for a virus (first time ever) that has been wildly unsuccessful in animal trials. Why?

I get the whole idea that these have to be trialed in double blind studies to prove their effectiveness and that people with political or financial ties should not be trusted. Let's just make sure we use the same criteria when the vaccine comes out. Will there be a double blind study? Will all of the government officials and advisors that have financial interests suddenly be ignored?

There is a vaccine for SARS and I believe MERS.  So your claim there hasn’t been a vaccine is just flat out wrong. 
 

And what similar disease has this drug been used to treat?  
 

And your claim that they aren’t testing this drug is flat out wrong also.  It’s being tested multiple places as evidence by the fact their are studies on it.  It was tested on Vets at the VA and they experience higher than accepted death rates. The fact the tests aren’t coming out the way you want doesn’t mean they aren’t occurring. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don’t have to ask the authors said why.  Did you not even read the link. Lol I know you didn’t 
 
The authors couldn’t independently verify the data.  
 
That doesn’t prove that the opposite of what the study concluded is actually true. 
 

Yet it got pushed as absolute 100% fact and a political pawn for “orange man bad.”


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Brass Cannon said:

There is a vaccine for SARS and I believe MERS.  So your claim there hasn’t been a vaccine is just flat out wrong. 
 

And what similar disease has this drug been used to treat?  
 

And your claim that they aren’t testing this drug is flat out wrong also.  It’s being tested multiple places as evidence by the fact their are studies on it.  It was tested on Vets at the VA and they experience higher than accepted death rates. The fact the tests aren’t coming out the way you want doesn’t mean they aren’t occurring. 

No, you are wrong. I know that's hard for you to take, but you are wrong. There is no Coronavirus vaccine. Why don't we have a vaccine for the common cold? They are trying to develop a vaccine to modify RNA and it has been wildly unsuccessful. So far, in every case, it produces so many antibodies that it starts attacking the host organs.

I didn't state anything about how i wanted the facts to come out. You are the one with on here with a crystal clear agenda.

Share this post


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

What studies say it works?  'So and so said they saw success' is an anecdote, that's all I've seen.

None of what we have is ideal, I won't argue otherwise, but it's all we've got and it says to be extremely cautious.

So and so didn't see success is an anecdote as well.  But French Dr. Didier Raoult published a study showing success. Granted people criticize it because it is not a randomized controlled study.  Which is a valid concern.  But none are.  Which is the point.  India is also doing a lot.  Eventually we'll get to a gold standard study.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Golfman25 said:

So and so didn't see success is an anecdote as well.  But French Dr. Didier Raoult published a study showing success. Granted people criticize it because it is not a randomized controlled study.  Which is a valid concern.  But none are.  Which is the point.  India is also doing a lot.  Eventually we'll get to a gold standard study.  

After looking it up, other doctors criticized Raoult's results saying it was poorly designed and too small to be taken as hard evidence.  France also had a study, small but double the people Raoult looked at, that showed no benefit.  A Chinese study also showed HCQ had increased adverse effects, but being China in this mess I'm willing to ignore that.

I saw India used it a lot as a preventative, but also saw recent study results showed it was no better than placebo used in that way.

As I've said, it's something we need to be extremely cautious with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, JSHoosier said:

After looking it up, other doctors criticized Raoult's results saying it was poorly designed and too small to be taken as hard evidence.  France also had a study, small but double the people Raoult looked at, that showed no benefit.  A Chinese study also showed HCQ had increased adverse effects, but being China in this mess I'm willing to ignore that.

I saw India used it a lot as a preventative, but also saw recent study results showed it was no better than placebo used in that way.

As I've said, it's something we need to be extremely cautious with.

And as I have said, we should wait for the gold standard study or 2 before saying anything definitive either way.  Peace out.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why aren't the HCQ proponents here equally exited about Ivermectin as a treatment? Where is the clamor to study it more, or the conspiracy accusations about media failing to promote it?

There is similar (very limited) testing/evidence of it's value when comparing to HCQ. The major difference appears to be a the lack of hype from a particular sector of US governance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, raorIU said:

So why aren't the HCQ proponents here equally exited about Ivermectin as a treatment? Where is the clamor to study it more, or the conspiracy accusations about media failing to promote it?

There is similar (very limited) testing/evidence of it's value when comparing to HCQ. The major difference appears to be a the lack of hype from a particular sector of US governance.

Cost? Not debating,  just wondering what the cost differential is. Ultimately,  it's going to come down to doctor/patient decisions!

Share this post


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

×