Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineHamHead
Hard Ass Motherfucker
Male


Registered: 03/17/15
Posts: 6,107
Loc: Galactic sector ZZ9 Plura...
Last seen: 2 years, 8 months
Re: COVID-19 hearing/Professor asks for review [Re: feevers]
    #27086828 - 12/13/20 07:13 AM (3 years, 1 month ago)

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0242184

For this retrospective study, we identified hospitalized patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection receiving IVM between March 10th and 30th 2020 in Hospital Clinic in Barcelona, Spain. Patients from countries endemic for Strongyloides stercoralis receiving immunosuppressant drugs such as corticosteroids or tocilizumab for COVID-19 were empirically treated with IVM 200μg/kg, single dose, following standard hospital procedures based on international recommendations (IVM group) [6].

During the study period a total of 13 severe COVID-19 patients receiving immunosuppressant therapy were treated with IVM at 200 μg/kg, single dose. In the IVM group, 5 (38.5%) patients were treated with tocilizumab, 3 (23.1%) with high doses of steroids, 3 (23.1%) with both tocilizumab and steroids, and 2 (15.3%) with tocilizumab, steroids and anakinra. Five patients required admission to an ICU. IVM was administered a median of 12 (IQR 8–18) days after the initiation of symptoms. In the non-IVM group, six (46.2%) patients were treated with tocilizumab and steroids, 2 (15.3%) with anakinra and steroids, 2 (15.3%) with tocilizumab, 2 (15.3%) with high doses of steroids and 1 with siltuximab.

Following hospital protocols at that moment, all patients received hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin. All patients in the control group and 12 up to the 13 patients in the IVM group were also treated with lopinavir/ritonavir. One patient in the IVM group did not receive lopinavir/ritonavir due to diarrhea. Two patients in the IVM group and one in the control group were also treated with remdesivir and one patient in the IVM group and two in the control group received beta-interferon. Comparison of baseline characteristics, clinical presentation, treatment and outcomes between COVID-19 patients treated with and without IVM is shown in Table 1. Although no significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between groups, a higher proportion of patients in the IVM group required admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) (69% vs 38% in the non-IVM group) (Table 1).

--------

I have been criticized for posting retrospective studies, so you will too.

Looks like they're administering too late. It's known that early treatment is better.

It's going to be tough to find any medication to save lives once they're so far into a disease. Especially when a majority if those who perish are elderly with compromised immune systems.

Simple prophylactics such as vitamin D, C, zinc and magnesium would probably be more beneficial than some of these pharmaceuticals, even HCQ, at preventing severe covid 19 disease.


--------------------
The Italian researchers’ findings, published by the INT’s scientific magazine Tumori Journal, show 11.6% of 959 healthy volunteers enrolled in a lung cancer screening trial between September 2019 and March 2020 had developed coronavirus antibodies well before February.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-italy-timing-idUSKBN27V0KF

This online first version has been peer-reviewed, accepted and edited,  but not formatted and finalized with corrections from authors and proofreaders

https://www.icandecide.org/


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,485
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: COVID-19 hearing/Professor asks for review [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #27086837 - 12/13/20 07:23 AM (3 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I wonder if the big pharma vaccine companies are trying to keep this story down?  The establishment media doesn't seem interested.  :shrug:



The NIH doesn't recommend the use of Ivermectin.  There's no real story for the media to tell.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineHamHead
Hard Ass Motherfucker
Male


Registered: 03/17/15
Posts: 6,107
Loc: Galactic sector ZZ9 Plura...
Last seen: 2 years, 8 months
Re: COVID-19 hearing/Professor asks for review [Re: Enlil]
    #27086851 - 12/13/20 07:39 AM (3 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I wonder if the big pharma vaccine companies are trying to keep this story down?  The establishment media doesn't seem interested.  :shrug:



The NIH doesn't recommend the use of Ivermectin.  There's no real story for the media to tell.




"Last Updated: August 27, 2020

Clinical Data in Patients With COVID-19
The available clinical data on the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 are limited.

Retrospective Analysis of Using Ivermectin in Patients With COVID-19
This study has not been peer reviewed.

This retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (27% with severe COVID-19) who were admitted to four Florida hospitals compared patients who received at least one dose of ivermectin (n = 173) to those who received "usual care" (n = 103).

Ninety percent of the ivermectin group and 97% of the usual care group received hydroxychloroquine (the majority received hydroxychloroquine in conjunction with azithromycin).

Limitations
This was a retrospective analysis.
The study included little or no information on oxygen saturation or radiographic findings. It was also unclear whether therapeutic interventions other than hydroxychloroquine, such as remdesivir or dexamethasone, were used in the study.
The timing of therapeutic interventions was not standardized; if the timing is not accounted for, it can bias the survival comparison.
The analyses of the durations of ventilation and hospitalization do not appear to account for death as a competing risk.

Interpretation
The limitations of this retrospective analysis make it difficult to draw conclusions about the efficacy of using ivermectin to treat patients with COVID-19."

Needs updates, August 27? It's December, 3 months later, why no further updates?

Tough to find a drug that works when so many are being given at once. Which ones are working and at what times?

Might want to reevaluate what the 'standards' of treatment are, now that it's known that Remdesivir isn't effective either.


--------------------
The Italian researchers’ findings, published by the INT’s scientific magazine Tumori Journal, show 11.6% of 959 healthy volunteers enrolled in a lung cancer screening trial between September 2019 and March 2020 had developed coronavirus antibodies well before February.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-italy-timing-idUSKBN27V0KF

This online first version has been peer-reviewed, accepted and edited,  but not formatted and finalized with corrections from authors and proofreaders

https://www.icandecide.org/


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,485
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: COVID-19 hearing/Professor asks for review [Re: HamHead]
    #27086857 - 12/13/20 07:49 AM (3 years, 1 month ago)

Maybe there's no good recent information to justify an update.  I certainly trust the NIH over some randos on the internet.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblefeeversM
Male


Registered: 12/28/10
Posts: 8,546
Loc: Flag
Re: COVID-19 hearing/Professor asks for review [Re: HamHead]
    #27086908 - 12/13/20 08:36 AM (3 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

HamHead said:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0242184

For this retrospective study, we identified hospitalized patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection receiving IVM between March 10th and 30th 2020 in Hospital Clinic in Barcelona, Spain. Patients from countries endemic for Strongyloides stercoralis receiving immunosuppressant drugs such as corticosteroids or tocilizumab for COVID-19 were empirically treated with IVM 200μg/kg, single dose, following standard hospital procedures based on international recommendations (IVM group) [6].

During the study period a total of 13 severe COVID-19 patients receiving immunosuppressant therapy were treated with IVM at 200 μg/kg, single dose. In the IVM group, 5 (38.5%) patients were treated with tocilizumab, 3 (23.1%) with high doses of steroids, 3 (23.1%) with both tocilizumab and steroids, and 2 (15.3%) with tocilizumab, steroids and anakinra. Five patients required admission to an ICU. IVM was administered a median of 12 (IQR 8–18) days after the initiation of symptoms. In the non-IVM group, six (46.2%) patients were treated with tocilizumab and steroids, 2 (15.3%) with anakinra and steroids, 2 (15.3%) with tocilizumab, 2 (15.3%) with high doses of steroids and 1 with siltuximab.

Following hospital protocols at that moment, all patients received hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin. All patients in the control group and 12 up to the 13 patients in the IVM group were also treated with lopinavir/ritonavir. One patient in the IVM group did not receive lopinavir/ritonavir due to diarrhea. Two patients in the IVM group and one in the control group were also treated with remdesivir and one patient in the IVM group and two in the control group received beta-interferon. Comparison of baseline characteristics, clinical presentation, treatment and outcomes between COVID-19 patients treated with and without IVM is shown in Table 1. Although no significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between groups, a higher proportion of patients in the IVM group required admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) (69% vs 38% in the non-IVM group) (Table 1).

--------

I have been criticized for posting retrospective studies, so you will too.

Looks like they're administering too late. It's known that early treatment is better.

It's going to be tough to find any medication to save lives once they're so far into a disease. Especially when a majority if those who perish are elderly with compromised immune systems.

Simple prophylactics such as vitamin D, C, zinc and magnesium would probably be more beneficial than some of these pharmaceuticals, even HCQ, at preventing severe covid 19 disease.




It wasn't a study on prophylactic use, they looked at biomarkers and the ivermectin did not have any effect, those who did not receive the ivermectin actually did better. It's just preliminary evidence suggesting ivermectin likely does not influence the course of the disease at all. The results have a good chance of translating over towards earlier and prophylactic use because they showed zero effect on any relevant biological markers to fighting off COVID. Even without that study (which was small and not all that convincing) I'd still have close to zero faith in the drug.

In-vitro it's easy to saturate a virus with whatever chemical you're looking to study, in humans, it's usually not. The in-vitro level of exposure they used is not attainable in humans, making the research that all of this hype was based upon completely irrelevant.


"The available pharmacokinetic data for ivermectin indicate that at the doses routinely used for the management of parasitic diseases the SARS-CoV-2 inhibitory concentrations are practically not attainable. At present any empiric treatment with ivermectin or its inclusion in therapeutic protocols are not scientifically justifiable. The very consideration of the drug as a broad spectrum antiviral agent is incorrect because it has failed to demonstrate antiviral effects beyond the in vitro level. Pending the paucity of reliable data from controlled studies and the aforementioned pharmacokinetic considerations, the application of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients is to be decisively discouraged."

"The analyzed data show that, at least at the clinically relevant dose ranges of ivermectin, the published in vitro inhibitory concentrations and especially the 5 µmol/L level causing almost total disappearance of viral RNA are virtually not achievable with the heretofore known dosing regimens in humans. The 5 µmol/L concentration is over 50 times higher than the levels attainable after 700 μg/kg [25] and 17 times higher vs. the largest Cmax found in the literature survey (247.8 ng/ml) [12]. Moreover the authors` claim for achieving viral inhibition with a single dose is inappropriate because practically the infected cells have been continuously exposed at concentrations that are virtually unattainable even with excessive dosing of the drug. In other words, the experimental design is based on clinically irrelevant drug levels with inhibitory concentrations whose targeting in a clinical trial seems doubtful at best."

"Ivermectin has been previously shown to exert antiviral activity in vitro against Dengue fever virus (DENV) [28], influenza virus [38], West Nile Virus [26], Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus [27] and heralded as a possible antiviral drug, but so far there has not been any clinical translation of these data. Noteworthy, a clinical trial for the treatment of Dengue fever in Thailand failed to show clinical benefits [11]. In light of the aforementioned pharmacokinetic considerations, this is not surprising given that the published inhibitory concentrations against DENV1-4 ranged within 1.66–2.32 µmol/L [28]."

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13102818.2020.1775118


Edited by feevers (12/13/20 09:01 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewolf8312
Pennywise
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/01/12
Posts: 2,356
Last seen: 3 days, 46 minutes
Re: COVID-19 hearing/Professor asks for review [Re: feevers] * 1
    #27086913 - 12/13/20 08:37 AM (3 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

feevers said:
Quote:

wolf8312 said:
Interesting that certain (left wing/liberal?) members of this political forum would immediately seek to attack the integrity of a doctor who is working on the front-lines saving lives!

A man fighting for and watching his patients die on a daily basis is predictably but much more worryingly immediately branded a dishonest charlatan or loon by some (themselves very dubious) posters on an internet forum with no medical training and lets be honest no idea if what this highly qualified professor is saying is actually correct or not! Nah lets just smear him!

And what hard hitting evidence do they propose exposes this dastardly and cowardly money grubbing charlatan?

He was wearing a lab coat!




So not only do you easily believe unfounded claims, but you spout them as well.





Sorry can you quote me directly? Which claims was I spouting? I did say that I found what he was saying convincing but I never stated that what he was saying was true.

Equally though I could ask you, on what foundation are you basing your assumption that this doctor is a grifting Charlatan?

I objected to the fact that you (and others) are vindictively attacking this doctors integrity without providing any evidence whatsoever to support such claims.

Quote:

Anything that goes against your narrow view of reality is liberal propaganda, right? Taking cues from Trump I see.




You seem to have me confused with someone else. I most certainly do not believe that the US/UK media/ government is controlled by liberals! You say that I have a narrow view of reality but yours seems restricted to the extent that you obviously assume that everyone is either one of two things. Pro-trump. Or, Anti-Trump.

Quote:

I totally trust your judgment on analyzing medical research.





At the end of the day the video was put up there for other people to make up their own minds. My intention is to make people aware of this and share it as widely as possible. If it's not true then believe me I would be much happier than if it actually is.

I knew well before even posting it there would be those who would immediately seek to attack the doctors credibility employing ad hominem smear tactics with a few logical fallacies (appeal to expert?) thrown in though without presenting any substantial evidence to support what they were saying.

Quote:

Where am I working right now? I'll give you a hint, it involves a hazmat suit at the moment.




:rolleyes:


--------------------
"I'm every nightmare you ever had. I am your worst dreams come true. I am everything you ever were afraid of."

Pennywise the dancing clown



Edited by wolf8312 (12/13/20 08:46 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblefeeversM
Male


Registered: 12/28/10
Posts: 8,546
Loc: Flag
Re: COVID-19 hearing/Professor asks for review [Re: wolf8312] * 1
    #27086953 - 12/13/20 08:55 AM (3 years, 1 month ago)

You referred to us as dubious posters with no medical training.

People were saying things you didn't want to hear, you respond by spouting insults and bullshit claims instead of evidence to support this doctor's hypothesis. That's an incredibly misguided and childish way to debate an issue that you brought to the table.



Quote:

Equally though I could ask you, on what foundation are you basing your assumption that this doctor is a grifting Charlatan?



Never said he was, just said he most likely is because that's what every other miracle drug promoter so far has been doing. I also said he just might not be very skilled at understanding research.



Quote:

I objected to the fact that you (and others) are vindictively attacking this doctors integrity without providing any evidence whatsoever to support such claims.



I'm not attacking anyone, I gave a simple opinion and evidence.


Quote:

I knew well before even posting it there would be those who would immediately seek to attack the doctors credibility employing ad hominem smear tactics with a few logical fallacies (appeal to expert?) thrown in though without presenting any substantial evidence to support what they were saying.



Projection, nice. To anyone who understands how to critically analyze research, the answer I gave was all the evidence needed. More research is needed, the studies now don't support his take on it. If better evidence comes to the table, I'm happy to re-assess.

You responded with ad hom smear tactics, logical fallacies, and zero evidence against what I've posted.


Quote:

:rolleyes:



Sure, your appeal to authority saying the doctor works with covid patients was useful and necessary, but the fact that I also work with covid patients is irrelevant.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewolf8312
Pennywise
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/01/12
Posts: 2,356
Last seen: 3 days, 46 minutes
Re: COVID-19 hearing/Professor asks for review [Re: feevers]
    #27087032 - 12/13/20 09:42 AM (3 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

feevers said:
You referred to us as dubious posters with no medical training.

People were saying things you didn't want to hear, you respond by spouting insults and bullshit claims instead of evidence to support this doctor's hypothesis. That's an incredibly misguided and childish way to debate an issue that you brought to the table.



Quote:

Equally though I could ask you, on what foundation are you basing your assumption that this doctor is a grifting Charlatan?



Never said he was, just said he most likely is because that's what every other miracle drug promoter so far has been doing. I also said he just might not be very skilled at understanding research.



Quote:

I objected to the fact that you (and others) are vindictively attacking this doctors integrity without providing any evidence whatsoever to support such claims.



I'm not attacking anyone, I gave a simple opinion and evidence.


Quote:

I knew well before even posting it there would be those who would immediately seek to attack the doctors credibility employing ad hominem smear tactics with a few logical fallacies (appeal to expert?) thrown in though without presenting any substantial evidence to support what they were saying.



Projection, nice. To anyone who understands how to critically analyze research, the answer I gave was all the evidence needed. More research is needed, the studies now don't support his take on it. If better evidence comes to the table, I'm happy to re-assess.

You responded with ad hom smear tactics, logical fallacies, and zero evidence against what I've posted.


Quote:

:rolleyes:



Sure, your appeal to authority saying the doctor works with covid patients was useful and necessary, but the fact that I also work with covid patients is irrelevant.




Well to be fair you're just a guy on the internet. If you claim to be an expert I might listen but it really depends on the evidence and arguments you put forward.

Quote:


People were saying things you didn't want to hear, you respond by spouting insults and bullshit claims instead of evidence to support this doctor's hypothesis. That's an incredibly misguided and childish way to debate an issue that you brought to the table.





But didn't you respond to the OP by doing the same thing? With the same insults and attacks upon the doctor himself, and it was this that I myself was objecting to? 

You even say yourself now that more studies do indeed need to be carried out. So why are we even arguing? We are in agreement that this guy may indeed well be right and what he is saying should be taken seriously or more studies carried out, no?

Quote:


I'm not attacking anyone, I gave a simple opinion and evidence.




The only thing is though you didn't seem to be quite so reasonable when originally you said: 

Quote:

This guy is almost certainly a charlatan who either lacks research skills/knowledge or more likely is grifting.





If I said 'this guys almost certainly a rapist and likely a nonce' could that not rightly be construed as my actually calling him those things despite my use of the word almost? I mean honestly that is what you meant right?


--------------------
"I'm every nightmare you ever had. I am your worst dreams come true. I am everything you ever were afraid of."

Pennywise the dancing clown



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,485
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: COVID-19 hearing/Professor asks for review [Re: wolf8312] * 1
    #27087036 - 12/13/20 09:45 AM (3 years, 1 month ago)

What is your agenda here, though?  You aren't qualified to render any probative opinion.  The guy in the video has submitted his stuff, and the NIH hasn't found it to be all that compelling.  At this point, it's a non-issue.  The shit isn't proven to work as of yet.  :shrug:

This isn't a medical forum.  This is politics.  This thread needs to be focused on the political aspects of it, and if it doesn't, it doesn't belong here.  We're not going to discuss the science or pharmacology of the drug here.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
Re: COVID-19 hearing/Professor asks for review [Re: feevers]
    #27087039 - 12/13/20 09:47 AM (3 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

feevers said:
Do you have a link to the study. I checked the usual databases and couldn't find that one.



It seems to be covered here.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 5 hours, 8 minutes
Re: COVID-19 hearing/Professor asks for review [Re: feevers] * 1
    #27087047 - 12/13/20 09:51 AM (3 years, 1 month ago)

If Kory actually said this to AP news,

Quote:

From the following AP article:

Kory told the AP that he stands by the comments he made at the hearing, saying that he was not trying to promote the drug but the data around it.




https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9768999400

I find Kory to be blind to the meaning of what he himself says to be taken seriously as a scientist. When I watched his interview I thought he was selling the treatment as much as  presenting the data, especially at that part at the end when he railed against poor outcomes of minorities and the need for ivermectin. 

The white lab jacket was a hoot of a prop.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
Re: COVID-19 hearing/Professor asks for review [Re: Enlil]
    #27087059 - 12/13/20 09:57 AM (3 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
The NIH doesn't recommend the use of Ivermectin.  There's no real story for the media to tell.



Watch the OP video from 4:27 - 5:00 where that report is discussed.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,485
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: COVID-19 hearing/Professor asks for review [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #27087062 - 12/13/20 09:59 AM (3 years, 1 month ago)

I did


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
Re: COVID-19 hearing/Professor asks for review [Re: Enlil] * 1
    #27087078 - 12/13/20 10:08 AM (3 years, 1 month ago)

Great.  Then you realize your post is a bit dated, as HamHead mentioned.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewolf8312
Pennywise
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/01/12
Posts: 2,356
Last seen: 3 days, 46 minutes
Re: COVID-19 hearing/Professor asks for review [Re: Enlil] * 1
    #27087084 - 12/13/20 10:18 AM (3 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
What is your agenda here, though?  You aren't qualified to render any probative opinion.  The guy in the video has submitted his stuff, and the NIH hasn't found it to be all that compelling.  At this point, it's a non-issue.  The shit isn't proven to work as of yet.  :shrug:

This isn't a medical forum.  This is politics.  This thread needs to be focused on the political aspects of it, and if it doesn't, it doesn't belong here.  We're not going to discuss the science or pharmacology of the drug here.





Which forum do you propose to move it to? Not the conspiracy forum? :grin:

As to my 'agenda' is it really so hard to believe that I may just actually care and worry about the direction this world is headed?

I worry.


--------------------
"I'm every nightmare you ever had. I am your worst dreams come true. I am everything you ever were afraid of."

Pennywise the dancing clown



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineHamHead
Hard Ass Motherfucker
Male


Registered: 03/17/15
Posts: 6,107
Loc: Galactic sector ZZ9 Plura...
Last seen: 2 years, 8 months
Re: COVID-19 hearing/Professor asks for review [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #27087092 - 12/13/20 10:25 AM (3 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Great.  Then you realize your post is a bit dated, as HamHead mentioned.




:popcorn:


--------------------
The Italian researchers’ findings, published by the INT’s scientific magazine Tumori Journal, show 11.6% of 959 healthy volunteers enrolled in a lung cancer screening trial between September 2019 and March 2020 had developed coronavirus antibodies well before February.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-italy-timing-idUSKBN27V0KF

This online first version has been peer-reviewed, accepted and edited,  but not formatted and finalized with corrections from authors and proofreaders

https://www.icandecide.org/


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,485
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: COVID-19 hearing/Professor asks for review [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #27087111 - 12/13/20 10:50 AM (3 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Great.  Then you realize your post is a bit dated, as HamHead mentioned.



No, my post is based on the most updated information from the NIH.  That's only a few months old, and no one has posted any newer information from the NIH about it. 

Do you have newer information from the NIH?


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,485
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: COVID-19 hearing/Professor asks for review [Re: wolf8312]
    #27087123 - 12/13/20 11:00 AM (3 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

wolf8312 said:

Which forum do you propose to move it to? Not the conspiracy forum? :grin:

As to my 'agenda' is it really so hard to believe that I may just actually care and worry about the direction this world is headed?

I worry.



Me too, but no one here is qualified to render an expert opinion about the claims of Dr. Kory.  That renders any opinions that any of us have about the drug nothing more than pure speculation.  If you want to discuss the political forces at play that perhaps make the NIH more or less responsive to newly proposed treatments, that's fine.  That's what this place is for.  I won't, however, let this thread become another of Hamhead's playgrounds where he engages in armchair medicine and advocates for a drug that isn't proven yet. 

That's my concern. 

On second thought, maybe this belongs in "drug policy reform" since it's clearly a thread about drug policy.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineHamHead
Hard Ass Motherfucker
Male


Registered: 03/17/15
Posts: 6,107
Loc: Galactic sector ZZ9 Plura...
Last seen: 2 years, 8 months
Re: COVID-19 hearing/Professor asks for review [Re: Enlil]
    #27087125 - 12/13/20 11:00 AM (3 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Great.  Then you realize your post is a bit dated, as HamHead mentioned.



No, my post is based on the most updated information from the NIH.  That's only a few months old, and no one has posted any newer information from the NIH about it. 

Do you have newer information from the NIH?




Are there any other credible sources you would accept outside NIH?


--------------------
The Italian researchers’ findings, published by the INT’s scientific magazine Tumori Journal, show 11.6% of 959 healthy volunteers enrolled in a lung cancer screening trial between September 2019 and March 2020 had developed coronavirus antibodies well before February.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-italy-timing-idUSKBN27V0KF

This online first version has been peer-reviewed, accepted and edited,  but not formatted and finalized with corrections from authors and proofreaders

https://www.icandecide.org/


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,485
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: COVID-19 hearing/Professor asks for review (moved) [Re: wolf8312]
    #27087126 - 12/13/20 11:00 AM (3 years, 1 month ago)

This thread was moved from Political Discussion.

Reason:
Fits here.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Supreme Court rules against medical marijuana Agent Cooper 4,423 12 09/10/12 08:36 PM
by MEEZIE

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Entire Staff
4,213 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 14 queries.