Investor20

You're absolutely correct! Go down to the "Provisional Death Counts For Covid" on the link you selected. Go through deaths for each age group...you'll see spikes in all categories, especially younger ages, into December (15-24). And then you see the massive drop in deaths as people began to get vaccinated from January. I'm glad you selected that link, since it's about as clear as I can get about the matter! One can act smart without taking the vaccine, but your own data shows that taking the vaccine has a much more dramatic effect than just "acting smarter". Cheers! That makes zero sense. The CDC link was interesting - younger age groups had their peak deaths the weeks of January 9 to 23. That usually means they were infected in the second half of December or the beginning of January. At that time only 0.1-1% of the U.S. population had been vaccinated, practically all of them care providers or risk groups (https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-global-distribution/). So you are saying that vaccinating this tiny fraction of people, somehow was miraculously the cause for a fall-of-a-cliff type drop in contagion and subsequent death rate of younger cohorts? Not to mention that the vaccines only protect the vaccinated from severe outcomes, but not from getting infected and potentially spreading the virus - or so we are told. No, vaccination dropped death rates for all categories...you can see the stats for yourself from January to present day. As the number of vaccinated people increased, the transmission rates dropped...the number of pneumonia cases dropped...the number of deaths dropped. Is it any wonder the number of influenza cases was so low in North America this year? That is due to social distancing, lockdowns, masks, increased disinfection...and you also see a decrease in Covid cases as inoculations occur. This is common sense and would be expected. Do vaccines carry risk...yes...but at extremely low levels as we've seen globally as inoculation results are studied more and more. Cheers! Alternative explanation: Peak transmission was Christmas and New Years, peak death rate 2-3 weeks later. With a finite population you can only have exponential growth for so long, and then you have a decline. Good example is South Dakota. No lockdowns, business closures etc., thus the curve was moved forward in time, and slightly higher (in terms of death per million). It peaked at the end of November, and dropped steeply the whole month of December with no vaccines yet. I'm not against vaccines at all, the start of vaccines probably steepened the drop in death rates, and, more importantly, will hopefully keep the curve down forever. I'm on the fence if people under 24 or 35 should be vaccinated. There maybe be an argument that children's organisms should get the chance to develop natural immunity, which I think may be broader than just immunity against a specific spike protein of a mutating virus, but I'm not a doctor. They are not falling everywhere vaccine is given. For example, for Mchigan cases and hospitalizations increasing https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/michigan-reports-highest-daily-covid-19-count-this-year-as-younger-adult-hospitalizations-spike-sharply/ar-BB1eVE8i the highest single-day total for new cases since Dec. 15, 2020.

I think you can equally use this argument against gun control. Guns have been around for even longer than a year. And in 2015, about 13,286 died as a result of being shot, so certainly not more than 13,286 people died of being shot in the head. And there are about 330M people in the USA. Therefore, if you're shot in the head, you have less than a 0.004% chance of dying. There's basically almost no chance of dying if you're shot in the head. Thanks! I need that! Cheers! The way I understood the comment is following way: 10 million per year die of cancer deaths every year 2.6 million died of Covid since its start. Yet the policies are such that we reduced cancer screenings by order of 80% "During California’s stay-at-home order, cervical cancer screening rates among approximately 1.5 million women in the Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) network decreased approximately 80% compared with baseline. " https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7004a1.htm According to Dr. Jay Bhattacharya at Stanford, we will be paying this price for decades to come, not just cancer screenings but diabetes, hypertension, reduced vaccination of children, etc. https://www.newsweek.com/jay-bhattacharya-stanford-doctor-says-reversing-covid-lockdown-damage-will-take-generation-1575522 Jay Bhattacharya, Stanford Doctor, Says Reversing COVID Lockdown Damage Will 'Take a Generation' About 607K people die of cancer every year in the U.S. out of the total population...not sure if your number is U.S. or global. 560K+ have died already from Covid with 30M+ cases to date in the U.S. Theoretically, with a generous conservative estimate that a third of the U.S. has already been exposed and recovered...you would still have over 1.6M deaths from Covid based on the total population of the U.S...conservatively estimated. Cheers! I am not sure how you went from 560K to 1.6M in an year for Covid. My numbers were global. And Dr. Bhattacharya is not talking about only Cancer. He is talking about reduced vaccination of children, Diabetes care, Blood pressure care, delayed care for heart patents, stroke patients. Overall for a policy of lockdowns very questionable if they worked to begin with as Florida had with more older people same or less Covid deaths than California. https://www.bcbs.com/the-health-of-america/infographics/missing-vaccinations-during-covid-19-puts-our-children-and-communities-at-risk 40% of parents say their children missed vaccination due to Covid. 9 Million missed vaccinations. New CDC Study Says 25% Of Young People Have Considered Suicide During Pandemic https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2020/08/20/new-cdc-study-young-people-suicide-coronavirus-pandemic/ Overall there is no doubt that lockdowns created more harm than they solved. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/mar/10/jay-bhattacharya-stanford-doctor-lockdowns-single-/ Stanford University doctor: Lockdowns 'single worst public health mistake' in last 100 years

I think you can equally use this argument against gun control. Guns have been around for even longer than a year. And in 2015, about 13,286 died as a result of being shot, so certainly not more than 13,286 people died of being shot in the head. And there are about 330M people in the USA. Therefore, if you're shot in the head, you have less than a 0.004% chance of dying. There's basically almost no chance of dying if you're shot in the head. Thanks! I need that! Cheers! The way I understood the comment is following way: 10 million per year die of cancer deaths every year 2.6 million died of Covid since its start. Yet the policies are such that we reduced cancer screenings by order of 80% "During California’s stay-at-home order, cervical cancer screening rates among approximately 1.5 million women in the Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) network decreased approximately 80% compared with baseline. " https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7004a1.htm According to Dr. Jay Bhattacharya at Stanford, we will be paying this price for decades to come, not just cancer screenings but diabetes, hypertension, reduced vaccination of children, etc. https://www.newsweek.com/jay-bhattacharya-stanford-doctor-says-reversing-covid-lockdown-damage-will-take-generation-1575522 Jay Bhattacharya, Stanford Doctor, Says Reversing COVID Lockdown Damage Will 'Take a Generation'

‘Leaky’ Vaccines Can Produce Stronger Versions of Viruses https://www.healthline.com/health-news/leaky-vaccines-can-produce-stronger-versions-of-viruses-072715 Updated on April 5, 2019 By studying chickens, researchers say they have proven the theory that more virulent viruses can evolve from so-called “leaky” vaccines. “When a vaccine works perfectly, as do the childhood vaccines for smallpox, polio, mumps, rubella and measles, it prevents vaccinated individuals from being sickened by the disease, and it also prevents them from transmitting the virus to others,” ...... 'Leaky' Vaccines May Fuel Evolution of Deadlier Viruses https://www.livescience.com/51682-vaccines-evolve-deadlier-viruses.html July 29, 2015

Just like when building an investment case, one should aim to build on previously established foundations. Occasionally, the process is a leap forward but often it is incremental but you need strong foundations. If you start with poor foundations, the likelihood of going in the wrong direction is high. The calcifediol study (IMO) has little or no value and it is hard to justify to build upon this work. Also, why would you want to 'mimic' a study with such poor foundations? The idea of 'replication' of a study is not simply to repeat the study. The most cost-effective conceptual way to go about this is to try to repeat the study with the aim to disprove the conclusions, in a way. That's why this Board is so interesting for investment thoughts when ideas get confronted and opposed in a constructive way. This is part fundamental analysis and part looking at incentives and incentives in those studies can be significant which is why independent replication is so important. The 'hormonal' study (and general line of thought) starts with a much stronger foundation even if it's about repurposed drugs. There is a clear and plausible mechanism of action through the ACE receptor. The study appears to be very well done and is a clear signal for replication to be done as soon as possible. Results appear solid but it's a sponsored study and, very often, the rate of favorable replication of sponsored studies is disappointing. All in all, there has to be a way to optimize the process (balance alternatives with established practices etc) but the Covid episode has shown that a huge amount of resources have been wasted because of poor foundations to start with and a poor process to follow. You must realize that an incredibly high number of 'researchers' are about to look for the next popular target. First of all everyone has their own style of investing. I like to study something that interests me and even if I dont find anything that is investible, I learnt something and that is enough of ROI for me. Regarding your issues with Calcifediol trial you said "From reported peer review, the study you mention has the following weaknesses: small number of patients, ICU admission as a subjective outcome, and the unusual dosing regimen. There are also many more that are easy to spot. From a proprietary review (just complemented with short review and and an investment parallel): In the study you mention, they report a comparison of some variables after randomization, but before actual 'blind' intervention: D-Dimer (ng/mL) (mean +/-SD) 'treated' group: 650.92 +/- 405.61 control group: 1333.54 +/- 2570.50" Note: Emphasis in underline added Your concern seems to be it is a small study. The authors called it a "Pilot" study. You are saying the intervention and placebo group are not matched well. That could be because of the small study. I am not clear about your concern about subjective nature of ICU admission because the authors said the trial is a "double-masked clinical trial." What I am hoping for is a randomized double blinded clinical trial which involves giving same dosage of Calcifediol, to same set of patients (at admission like in the pilot trial), but larger number of volunteers, using a randomized blinded study. The blinding portion is to take care of the subjective part you were concerned about - which authors said they already used. This is what I mean by mimicking the "Pilot" study with a larger study to confirm the results. What I am asking is why was this not done long time back? Note: Only for discussion. Not a suggestion for treatment. Please consult a physician for any treatment.

The Aug 2020 study shares several methodological flaws which are fundamental (there is a pattern). From reported peer review, the study you mention has the following weaknesses: small number of patients, ICU admission as a subjective outcome, and the unusual dosing regimen. There are also many more that are easy to spot. From a proprietary review (just complemented with short review and and an investment parallel): In the study you mention, they report a comparison of some variables after randomization, but before actual 'blind' intervention: D-Dimer (ng/mL) (mean +/-SD) 'treated' group: 650.92 +/- 405.61 control group: 1333.54 +/- 2570.50 Because of the wide dispersion in d-dimer levels and because of small numbers, they come to the conclusion that there is no statistical difference for d-dimer levels between the two groups, a conclusion which is obviously very suspect. Any difference when comparing groups after randomization is suspicious and attempts to adjust results after the fact is even more suspicious. Also, the d-dimer variable is incredibly important. For the financially focused, the d-dimer level for somebody coming to the hospital is similar to the Altman Z-score for a company potentially entering distress. The importance of this aspect was sort of suspected when the study was published but the importance of elevated d-dimer levels for Covid has been consistently and repeatedly demonstrated since then. Higher d-dimer levels indicate that the the Covid disease process is more advanced, has entered an unfavorable immune response profile and has involved the coagulation profile. Higher d-dimer levels indicate that there is higher risk (exponential type of rise with linear rise in d-dimer levels) for disease severity, ICU admission, poor outcome and death. The difference in d-dimer levels in the two groups after randomization, in itself, goes a long way in explaining the measured differences in 'treatment' outcomes and makes this study essentially valueless. Just for fun (in the unlikely event that there is one other person in the world who wonders), more recent reports about d-dimers and Covid show a very similar correlation matrix (sensitivity and specificity, but even more convincing for d-dimers) with area under the curve on the left showing excess risk between the d-dimer phenomenon and the excess bankruptcy risk described for the Altman Z-score: From the covid stuff (2021): From the bankruptcy stuff (2013): The study you mention is like if the FED would have set up two groups last year, 'randomly' selected: one group receive support and the other group does not and they report that the group they supported did much better, forgetting to discuss that evaluation of their data indicates that the 'randomization' process resulted in the 'untreated' group starting out with wildly worse Altman Z-scores. An option then would be to keep on repeating the same mistakes, over and over again. What is there to lose? @Cigarbutt, You missed my specified gripe, no one tried to mimic this Calcifediol study and mimic it to confirm the result after 8 months. These studies for treatment are mostly done outside US. Here is another: Kintor Pharmaceutical has reported top-line results from its investigator-initiated trial of Proxalutamide in Brazil, which showed a 92% reduction in mortality in hospitalised Covid-19 patients. https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/news/kintor-proxalutamide-lowers-mortality/ "the placebo-controlled, double-blinded, randomised, parallel assignment, and multi-centre trial enrolled 588 patients within 48 hours of hospital admission." "On 9 March, a preliminary analysis was conducted based on 294 patients in the Proxalutamide arm and 296 patients in the control arm. "Results showed that the mortality in the Proxalutamide arm was 11 (3.7%) versus 141 (47.6%) in the control arm on day 14, indicating a 92% reduced mortality risk." @John. To say Coronavirus has no relationship to investment is ridiculous statement. But my contention was from the description of General Discussion forum "Feel free to talk about anything and everything on this board". It has threads like " I Need a Laugh. Tell me a Joke. Keep em PC.", "When will you take a vaccine", and "Movies and TV shows (general recommendation thread)", etc.

...so you recognize that the costs and outcomes could quite possibly be asymmetric and you make a decision. ---) Pascal's wager argument SJ Why would causation be an issue in prospective randomized clinical studies. My main gripe is even after 8 months after the Spain pilot randomized study showing over 90% improvement with Calcifediol, no prospective randomized clinical study was done. ... @Investor20 i think this is not the place to argue about specifics unrelated to investments. For your own potential benefit though, you may want to take a look at this: https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=183110124086122101102097088025096087053071017088069085030106035014016005029027087109054039038069096025084085005094125105002042006001104046005072005101012083042059078008088037095080105104083120004038106070084060095065106024068114073027110069084125095117087006109028100094022026117111096105026&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE It's a study (labeled as high level evidence by the authors) looking for a peer review which has recently been released and that shares authors with the 'spectacular' Barcelona study that you mention. Let's see if you can come up with an objective opinion about the authors' conclusions and their significance. ----- Easy paths (paths of least resistance) are great but can lead astray. The fundamental problem with the Pascal's wager analogy is that you need an underlying assumption that there is only one god. That's why some prefer to use a 'cocktail' approach (add selenium, zinc etc etc). The added level of uncertainty with Covid was significant but where do you draw the line? How do you balance the need to keep an open mind and the possibility of doing stupid things? And yes 'easy' solutions are popular these days but are 'we' on the right path? This is a coronavirus thread. Not investment thread. The above study you gave the link is not a randomized study. Instead they gave the medicine and placebo by ward, not randomized by individuals. Upon realizing this Lancet removed the publication. This study came out in jan 2021. The study I was citing is below and was published in Aug 2020 where they randomized individual hospitalized patients. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960076020302764?via%3Dihub And there is observational study I cited too, the Dubai hospital report https://vitamindwiki.com/Vitamin+D+has+eliminated+ICU+COVID-19+in+hospital+in+Dubai+since+June+-+Sept+26%2C+2020 Vitamin D has eliminated ICU COVID-19 in hospital in Dubai since June - Sept 26, 2020 @SJ: Blacks and other colored people are disproportionately effected by Covid, especially in colder areas such as NYC or Chicago. One hypothesis is due to their skin color, they have much higher Vitamin D deficiency. Thanks for bringing up the issue of skin color and Vitamin D. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/covid19-racial-disparities According to media reports, in Chicago, where African Americans comprise a third of the city’s population, they account for half of those who have tested positive for the coronavirus, and almost three-quarters of COVID-19 deaths. Note: Not a suggestion for treatment. For discussion only. Please consult a physician for any treatment.

No, your policy observation is spot on. Ignoring the constitutional inappropriateness of Ottawa providing vitamin D to citizens, it would certainly be a measure that should have been stacked-up and compared to the myriad of other spending and regulatory measures that the federal government has employed over the past year. For all of those, cabinet should have been provided analysis to evaluate the costs and the potential benefits. A vitamin D initiative would likely stack up favourably in the long list of measures that have been considered (at the top of the list would have been the covid app which held the potential to significantly facilitate trace-back at a trivial cost, and the bottom of the list would be the establishment of domestic vaccine production capacity not slated to come on line until December 2021 which is likely to be useless irrespective of cost). Effectively, there is precious little difference between taking measures like mask mandates on the hope that it reduces transmission, shutting down outdoor events with the notion that it might help to some degree, and a vitamin D program. Ex ante, there is scant evidence that any of them would work in practice, so you recognize that the costs and outcomes could quite possibly be asymmetric and you make a decision. SJ Why would causation be an issue in prospective randomized clinical studies. My main gripe is even after 8 months after the Spain pilot randomized study showing over 90% improvement with Calcifediol, no prospective randomized clinical study was done. If you see the below link of a new Ivermectin meta-analysis, the authors on page 11 & 12 (Table 1) listed the RCT studies they identified of Ivermectin by a search of databases. https://osf.io/k37ft/ They list Bangladesh, Nigeria, Spain, Pakistan, India, Bulgaria, Israel, Egypt, Argentina.....of locations of these studies they identified. To resolve causation, one could do prospective randomized clinical studies which many countries did for Ivermectin. I would hope they simply mimic the Calcifediol pilot randomized study to confirm the findings in a larger study. Note: For discussion only. Not a suggestion for treatment. Please consult your physician for any treatment.

"Try not to panic if you're feeling breathless. This can make it worse", NHS says. NHS under the heading "Things to try if you're feeling breathless" offers the advice to try "breathing slowly in through your nose and out through your mouth" There are so many medicines tested, many randomized clinical studies across the world with positive signal of working and the western world has found a problem with each of them. 332 studies listed in this link. https://c19early.com/ Forget about medicines, just looking at Vitamin D, this randomized open label, double-masked clinical trial study of Vitamin D metabolite (Calcifediol) was found to reduce ICU admission from 50% to 2%: Of 50 patients treated with calcifediol, one required admission to the ICU (2%), while of 26 untreated patients, 13 required admission (50 %) p value X2 Fischer test p < 0.001. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7456194/ (Published online 2020 Aug 29, done in Spain) That is a reduction from 50% to 2%, or 96% reduction. Yet there is no follow up study. Yet it does not show up in guidances. Dont panic if you are not able to breath is still the advise and try to breath slowly. https://vitamindwiki.com/Vitamin+D+has+eliminated+ICU+COVID-19+in+hospital+in+Dubai+since+June+-+Sept+26%2C+2020 Vitamin D has eliminated ICU COVID-19 in hospital in Dubai since June - Sept 26, 2020 How do people stand this? I can try to understand someone wants more studies of Calcifediol. But no studies that I know of since the publication in Aug 2020 that showed over 90% reduction in ICU admission. Note: For discussion only. Not for treatment. Please consult your physician for any treatment.

People not seem to understand the "advanced care" they get if they got infected. Right now as per https://covidtracking.com/data Still above 50,000 cases per day with about 50,000 current hospitalizations. So what is the treatment for these 50,000 people covid positive per day that is offered so that they dont get to hospitalization stage? See below by NHS (US is not that different): https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/self-isolation-and-treatment/how-to-treat-symptoms-at-home/ How to look after yourself at home if you have coronavirus: Treating a high temperature If you have a high temperature, it can help to: get lots of rest drink plenty of fluids (water is best) to avoid dehydration – drink enough so your pee is light yellow and clear take paracetamol or ibuprofen if you feel uncomfortable Treating a cough If you have a cough, it's best to avoid lying on your back. Lie on your side or sit upright instead. To help ease a cough, try having a teaspoon of honey. But do not give honey to babies under 12 months. If this does not help, you could contact a pharmacist for advice about cough treatments. Things to try if you're feeling breathless If you're feeling breathless, Try turning the heating down or opening a window. Do not use a fan as it may spread the virus. You could also try: breathing slowly in through your nose and out through your mouth, with your lips together like you're gently blowing out a candle sitting upright in a chair relaxing your shoulders, so you're not hunched leaning forward slightly – support yourself by putting your hands on your knees or on something stable like a chair Try not to panic if you're feeling breathless. This can make it worse. KCLarkin, I am talking about treatment for these patients and hoping they dont get worse. Right now, today its about 50,000 patients a day just in US and 400,000 new cases world wide (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/). Note: Not suggesting any treatment. Consult a physician. This is only for discussion.

One of the best things I ever heard from Warren Buffett is about 5 years back at Omaha. Some one asked about the future gains vs past gains. He said the importance of money is what you can buy. He gave an example, of Rockfeller, who besides his great wealth would not have had a proper head ache medicine or an AC car, let alone a mobile phone. Yes Ivermectin is off patent and is almost free and there is no money to be made by selling Ivermectin. But that is besides the point. Ivermectin was started being used in April in FLorida by a Covid center. The first publication showing its efficacy came in June 2020. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.06.20124461v2 June 2020 After adjustment for between-group differences and mortality risks, the mortality difference remained significant for the entire cohort (OR 0.27, CI 0.09-0.85, p=.03;). That is over 70% reduction in death. The media said this is only propensity matched observational study. Since then Unitaid funded meta-analysis of 18 RCTs published showing substantial reduction on death which I posted before. The media said only 18 RCT studies. Then CNN takes this one study which is underpowered to write an article "FDA warns against using anti-parasitic drug for Covid-19 after reports of hospitalizations". Come on KCLarkin. This does not bother you? And vaccine is not 100% efficacious. Its efficacy in transmitting is not clear. The effect of strains is not clear. In fact Biden and Fauci suggested that normal life may not come till 2022 even though most will be vaccinated by summer. So my understanding is Ivermectin will play a role in future infections. Vaccine does not treat infected people. Note: For discussion only. Not intended as a suggestion for any treatment. Please consult a physician for any treatment.

This shows how bad the reporting about Ivermectin is: https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19 Title: Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19 By FDA. In the article: "The FDA has not reviewed data to support use of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients to treat or to prevent COVID-19; however, some initial research is underway." "The FDA has received multiple reports of patients who have required medical support and been hospitalized after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for horses." Then other media take this article by FDA, such as by CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/05/health/ivermectin-covid-19-fda-statement-wellness/index.html FDA warns against using anti-parasitic drug for Covid-19 after reports of hospitalizations But they forget to note that FDA states "The FDA has not reviewed data to support use of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients to treat or to prevent COVID-19" Instead they point to one study that appeared recently in Jamanetwork out of over 20 RCT studies with Ivermectin: CNN says (instead of saying FDA did not review the data) "The announcement comes just a day after new research published in the medical journal JAMA that found ivermectin did not seem to "significantly improve" the time needed for symptoms to get better among patients with Covid-19. " But what did JAMA article find? They used volunteers with average age 37 of a small study, where you dont expect statistically significant severe disease. In fact Jama article states: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389 Few patients had clinical deterioration of 2 or more points in the ordinal 8-point scale, and there was no significant difference between the 2 treatment groups (2% in the ivermectin group and 3.5% in the placebo group; There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients who required escalation of care in the 2 treatment groups (2% with ivermectin, 5% with placebo; "One patient in the placebo group died during the study period." Table 2 shows zero died in Ivermectin group. Table 2 also shows fever since randomization 8% with Ivermectin vs 10.6% Placebo. That is the results showed a plausable signal for efficacy, except that it was conducted with average 37 years old in a small study that even escalation of care between Ivermectin with 2% patients vs 5% with placebo, that is potential 60% reduction is not statistically significant. Its so sad to read such reporting. Note: This is for discussion only. Please consult your phsician for any treatment. I agree with FDA that medication intended for horses should not be taken by humans. Not a suggestion for any treatment.

Read it again: if they are pushed into their grave to a far greater degree by covid-19 as compared to the common cold, then credit where credit is do. "Dubbed long-term nonprogressors, they are able to maintain low viral loads – measured by the amount of HIV in a blood sample – and near normal T cell counts without medication." https://www.fredhutch.org/en/news/center-news/2015/12/HIV-super-survivors.html For HIV too there is a clinical effect, decreased T cell counts. You dont pin it on HIV for people who have HIV but normal immunity. This percentage of asymptomatic people for HIV are much less than Covid, but the concept is the same.

Cost effectively....I agree. It is cost effective to test Hydroxychloroquine in early treatment. Ivermectin too. How many studies did NIH or WHO conducted for early use (not in hospital)? I dont know of any. Please share if I missed any. All Ivermectin randomized clinical trials were done in India, Iraq, Iran, Argentina, etc. Obviously they are not that expensive to conduct. Yet I dont know of one randomized control study of Ivermectin from US, WHO or Europe. The main import of the article I posted is about different phases of Covid and different treatments that are appropriate. Its not about any one drug. For example referring back to Figure 2, antivirals need to be given early. Drugs that act against pneumonia and cytokine storm at that stage, etc... This is the main difference from official standard. For example Remdesivir is given in hospital stage, after virus replication according this paper. Yes for Hydroxychloroquine there are no early RCT. But there are RCTs for Ivermectin. There is one also for Budenoside by Oxford. The typical official line for Ivermectin or Budenoside is they want more data. Yet, I dont know of any clinical studies planed by NIH, Oxford, WHO etc. Its so unfortunate that despite these big budgeted organizations, we have to rely on clinical studies from hospitals in Baghdad or Dhaka. I take my decision on the data I have. If this data is not good enough, I would call upon NIH, Oxford, WHO to conduct the studies, not keep saying we need more data. They have been saying that for a long time now. And finally how many randomized clinical studies showed Remdesivir is effective. Please share that Remdesivir data Cigarbutt. WHO recommends against the use of remdesivir in COVID-19 patients (November 2020). https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-recommends-against-the-use-of-remdesivir-in-covid-19-patients Is Remdesivir cost effective? Note: Only for discussion. Please consult your physician about any treatment.

I agree with you if there are signs of oxygen drop or lung xray showing lung pnemonia, then it may be appropriate. However, https://blog.radiology.virginia.edu/covid-19-and-imaging/ "A significant percentage of patients with COVID-19 have normal chest CTs or x-rays. " What is being proposed is that if a PCR test is positive for a dead person, that it self becomes automatically a Covid death. Even CDC does not take this position in an indirect manner. After a positive test and quarantine, if one is healthy, CDC does not recommend a second test with PCR. The reason is our immunity has broken up the virus and PCR is just catching broken pieces of virus. With such a test that cannot even differentiate between broken pieces of virus vs active replicating virus, and no other symptoms of Covid, declaring death for Covid by testing a dead person is too far for me. Please see below for reference. "People who have been confirmed with mild to moderate COVID-19 can leave their isolation without receiving a negative test, according to recently revised guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." "The CDC also notes that virus fragments have been found in patients up to three months after the onset of the illness, although those pieces of virus have not been shown to be capable of transmitting the disease." https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/cdc-changes-covid-19-guidance-how-long-patients-need-be-n1234883 What they are proposing is a person gets asymptomatic Covid, the body clears it and something else happens, dies and they check the body and find PCR positive but it could be broken pieces of Virus and declare Covid dead.

When looking at the following, what comes to mind? -People are stupid? -We should be scared? Maybe part of the above answers are right but i would submit that people somehow are trying to get through this, sometimes through trial and error and sometimes the result is not elegant. A nice thing about such a place is that people can share independent thoughts (sometimes with deep convictions). It doesn't mean though that someone who thinks differently is an enemy. ----- Have you seen the latest results for the influenza season (in the US as an example of a global phenomenon)? The point of this is not that we have learnt how to deal effectively with the flu but that there may something to learn if 'we' communicate and collaborate more effectively and in a more constructive way. Congrats, you discovered all influenza deaths are counted as "Corona" deaths. Most heart attacks are even counted as Corono deaths. How else could they inflate the numbers to such a ridiculous degree with a common cold infection? How do people get influenza if working in the house all day and rarely venture out without a mask? If someone who is very ill with COVID has a heart-attack and dies, how would you determine cause? Are you saying the heart-attack was inevitable and would have happened on same day and been fatal without the person being ill? If a 95 year old gets sick with COVID and dies, should we tell their kids and grandkids we don't count the COVID because their remaining life expectancy was so short? Let me invert that for you: 1) How do people get Corona when working in the house all day? (yes Influenza is the same) 2) Well the official numbers if heart attacks is certainly too low a number. Heart attacks didnt suddenly drop 98% and neither did Influenza. They do blood tests on dead people of any cause and if their "test" (which doesnt even test for Corona) cokes back positive they count it as Corona death even if he had zero symptons. Come on people. Certainly you aren't all this retarded? :( 1) Yes, I'm saying that the measures taken to prevent the spread of COVID (a much more dangerous illness) have also prevented the spread of Influenza. 2) Do you have a source for heart attacks declining 98%? I'm reading that deaths from heart disease are up during COVID, presumably because fewer people are seeking medical attention for its symptoms. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/why-heart-disease-deaths-rose-during-covid-19-surge As for your asssertion about testing dead bodies for COVID to attribute it as a cause of death, do you have a source for that? The topic is covered here: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/19/858390822/with-postmortem-testing-last-responders-shed-light-on-pandemic-s-spread "If family or friends say the person had symptoms consistent with COVID-19, the coroner's office will typically do a nasal swab to test for the virus, he says. If the test is positive and the office can determine the cause of death without an autopsy, one will generally not be performed." ... If a body at the morgue is positive for COVID-19, "you want to avoid doing an autopsy unless it's absolutely necessary," Melinek says, because of the risk of becoming exposed to the virus through aerosolized particles or blood. Plus, she noted, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration recommends against performing autopsies in COVID-19 deaths. Thanks, Eric. But I'm not sure how to parse it. Part of the article seemed to imply COVID deaths were under reported last May (when the article was written) because of a lack of tests for morgues to use? I'm assuming the access to far more testing facilities since has changed that. But if a dead body tests positive for COVID, and so they eschew an autopsy to report COVID as the cause, what percentage of the time is that wrong? If you had terminal cancer, and get COVID, is it wrong to think you would have lived a few months longer without it and your death should be reported as COVID? I've googled looking for explanations but so far come up empty. All I can think is if i get COVID, my ex-wife has a free pass to come over to my house and poison me risk free now. It's more dangerous than I thought! It’s basically a little bit like rock, paper, scissors. Rock beats scissors even though scissors beats paper although in this case it may be a ways (many years) down the road. And in this case paper typically beats rock in the absence of scissors. From a high level, the common cold doesn’t push people into their graves the way covid-19 does, so credit where credit is due. That is a great exaggaration. There are two parts One is hospital acquired Covid-19. https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/problem-covid-19-hospital-acquired-infections "SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes COVID-19 and unfortunately HSJ found that hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) are not uncommon, estimated to cause almost 1 in 4 hospital COVID-19 cases." Many also get covid and their immunity does take care of it before it spreads. It is the few that go to that next stage that are in trouble. This is explained in the below article (Figure 2). https://rcm.imrpress.com/article/2020/2153-8174/RCM2020264.shtml "The early flu-like stage of viral replication provides a therapeutic window of tremendous opportunity to potentially reduce the risk of more severe sequelae in high risk patients. Precious time is squandered with a “wait and see” approach in which there is no anti-viral treatment as the condition worsens, possibly resulting in unnecessary hospitalization, morbidity, and death. Once infected, the only means of preventing a hospitalization in a high-risk patient is to apply treatment before arrival of symptoms that prompt paramedic calls or emergency room visits." Yet NIH proposes using Remdiisiver after hospitalization, after viral replication and spread. I wonder what Cigarbutt would say if someone proposes treating cancer after it spread through the body. Note: Only for discussion. Please consult your physician for any treatment. I read your "two parts". Can you explain how that relates to my post? That is why I referred to the Figure 2 in the article: https://rcm.imrpress.com/article/2020/2153-8174/RCM2020264.shtml As per these authors (57 medical doctors from many countries in a peer reviewed article) there are three stages to the Covid 1) Viral proliferation which is flu like (Ambulatory phase at home quarantine) 2) Cytokine injury in week to 10 days (Hospitalization) 3) Thrombosis and death which can take about a month. (Possible Death) Your comment about Covid pushes people into death more than flu is only for the set of people who goes into second stage, and takes upto a month to get to stage of dying, unless they recover. I dont think it is appropriate to take asymptomatic to mild sympomatic patients who does not have signs of going into second stage (Oxygen drop, lung radiology results, etc) and count them into Covid deaths. This set of people who are majority of people who get Covid, their immunity took care of Covid. Hopefully I am more clearer. 1) This is particulary more important for 1 in 4 who catch Covid in hospital but hospitalized for something else (I gave a reference for this number) and die, they would not have been in hospital but for something else. This 25% I believe should not be counted as Covid deaths automatically. 2) Even for positives before admission, it should be based on if they went into second stage based on lung radiographic, oxygen levels etc. If it did not go into second stage, then it is flu like. As an aside, I was pointing out the Table 1 in above article, where the authors list countries trying to treat people early in ambulatory phase instead of waiting and watching like in US to see if an infected person would go into second stage. Note: As usual this is only for discussion, not treatment

When looking at the following, what comes to mind? -People are stupid? -We should be scared? Maybe part of the above answers are right but i would submit that people somehow are trying to get through this, sometimes through trial and error and sometimes the result is not elegant. A nice thing about such a place is that people can share independent thoughts (sometimes with deep convictions). It doesn't mean though that someone who thinks differently is an enemy. ----- Have you seen the latest results for the influenza season (in the US as an example of a global phenomenon)? The point of this is not that we have learnt how to deal effectively with the flu but that there may something to learn if 'we' communicate and collaborate more effectively and in a more constructive way. Congrats, you discovered all influenza deaths are counted as "Corona" deaths. Most heart attacks are even counted as Corono deaths. How else could they inflate the numbers to such a ridiculous degree with a common cold infection? How do people get influenza if working in the house all day and rarely venture out without a mask? If someone who is very ill with COVID has a heart-attack and dies, how would you determine cause? Are you saying the heart-attack was inevitable and would have happened on same day and been fatal without the person being ill? If a 95 year old gets sick with COVID and dies, should we tell their kids and grandkids we don't count the COVID because their remaining life expectancy was so short? Let me invert that for you: 1) How do people get Corona when working in the house all day? (yes Influenza is the same) 2) Well the official numbers if heart attacks is certainly too low a number. Heart attacks didnt suddenly drop 98% and neither did Influenza. They do blood tests on dead people of any cause and if their "test" (which doesnt even test for Corona) cokes back positive they count it as Corona death even if he had zero symptons. Come on people. Certainly you aren't all this retarded? :( 1) Yes, I'm saying that the measures taken to prevent the spread of COVID (a much more dangerous illness) have also prevented the spread of Influenza. 2) Do you have a source for heart attacks declining 98%? I'm reading that deaths from heart disease are up during COVID, presumably because fewer people are seeking medical attention for its symptoms. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/why-heart-disease-deaths-rose-during-covid-19-surge As for your asssertion about testing dead bodies for COVID to attribute it as a cause of death, do you have a source for that? The topic is covered here: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/19/858390822/with-postmortem-testing-last-responders-shed-light-on-pandemic-s-spread "If family or friends say the person had symptoms consistent with COVID-19, the coroner's office will typically do a nasal swab to test for the virus, he says. If the test is positive and the office can determine the cause of death without an autopsy, one will generally not be performed." ... If a body at the morgue is positive for COVID-19, "you want to avoid doing an autopsy unless it's absolutely necessary," Melinek says, because of the risk of becoming exposed to the virus through aerosolized particles or blood. Plus, she noted, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration recommends against performing autopsies in COVID-19 deaths. Thanks, Eric. But I'm not sure how to parse it. Part of the article seemed to imply COVID deaths were under reported last May (when the article was written) because of a lack of tests for morgues to use? I'm assuming the access to far more testing facilities since has changed that. But if a dead body tests positive for COVID, and so they eschew an autopsy to report COVID as the cause, what percentage of the time is that wrong? If you had terminal cancer, and get COVID, is it wrong to think you would have lived a few months longer without it and your death should be reported as COVID? I've googled looking for explanations but so far come up empty. All I can think is if i get COVID, my ex-wife has a free pass to come over to my house and poison me risk free now. It's more dangerous than I thought! It’s basically a little bit like rock, paper, scissors. Rock beats scissors even though scissors beats paper although in this case it may be a ways (many years) down the road. And in this case paper typically beats rock in the absence of scissors. From a high level, the common cold doesn’t push people into their graves the way covid-19 does, so credit where credit is due. That is a great exaggaration. There are two parts One is hospital acquired Covid-19. https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/problem-covid-19-hospital-acquired-infections "SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes COVID-19 and unfortunately HSJ found that hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) are not uncommon, estimated to cause almost 1 in 4 hospital COVID-19 cases." Many also get covid and their immunity does take care of it before it spreads. It is the few that go to that next stage that are in trouble. This is explained in the below article (Figure 2). https://rcm.imrpress.com/article/2020/2153-8174/RCM2020264.shtml "The early flu-like stage of viral replication provides a therapeutic window of tremendous opportunity to potentially reduce the risk of more severe sequelae in high risk patients. Precious time is squandered with a “wait and see” approach in which there is no anti-viral treatment as the condition worsens, possibly resulting in unnecessary hospitalization, morbidity, and death. Once infected, the only means of preventing a hospitalization in a high-risk patient is to apply treatment before arrival of symptoms that prompt paramedic calls or emergency room visits." Yet NIH proposes using Remdiisiver after hospitalization, after viral replication and spread. I wonder what Cigarbutt would say if someone proposes treating cancer after it spread through the body. Note: Only for discussion. Please consult your physician for any treatment.

India has low Covid. Several articles came up explaining. Here are two: https://in.news.yahoo.com/no-mystery-top-american-pandemic-124500304.html No Mystery, Top American Pandemic Expert Lists 9 Govt Actions Behind Plummeting Covid Cases in India "“The message to go out from India therefore is ‘restrict travel in areas wherein cases are there, isolate cases and don’t allow them to transmit infection’,” he wrote." Another one by Wall Street Journal https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-was-consuming-india-until-nearly-everyone-started-wearing-masks-11609329603 Covid-19 Was Consuming India, Until Nearly Everyone Started Wearing Masks The only problem is if you look at videos online, India had elections in October. But they had regular elections, not mail in ballot. Here is one video of the elction campaign Media was saying in October, the lack of distancing, masks etc would create havoc in India. However, the positivity rate fell dramatically since then. Now they are explaining (making up stories) that Indians wear masks and social distance better than other countries. Here is a video of a cricket match in India. Do they look like wearing masks and social distancing? Yet that is what the media carries as "ëxpert" opinion and journalism. Note: Follow the guidances in your location. I am talking about honesty in reporting, whether in Lancet or Media and is for discussion only.

CDC says "Given as a tablet in mass drug administrations, oral ivermectin has been used extensively and safely for over two decades in many countries to treat filarial worm infections. Although not FDA-approved for the treatment of lice, ivermectin tablets given in a single oral dose of 200 micrograms/kg or 400 micrograms/kg repeated in 9-10 days has been shown effective against head lice. It should not be used in children weighing less than 15 kg or in pregnant women." https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/lice/head/treatment.html Cigarbutt, is it your argument. that Ivermectin is safe for lice but not for Covid? I never seen anyone being hospitalized, put on Oxygen, let alone die with lice yet CDC is saying its good for lice. Unitaid funded study had 18 Randomized clinical trials. How many Randomized clinical trials would satisfy you? Note: Not a suggestion for treatment. Please consult your physician for any treatment. Only for discussion

Interesting. In your cherry-picked study, they managed to kill 11/60 on SoC/Placebo? In all the other studies you listed, there was only one death TOTAL in ~450 patients? Seems like Niaee's hospital system is very good at killing Covid patients. Maybe HCQ shouldn't be SoC? That is not my cherry picked studies. They are cherry picked by "Launched in March 2020, COVID-NMA is an international initiative working in conjunction with the World Health Organization (WHO), led by a team of researchers from Cochrane ..." https://covid-nma.com/about-us/who-we-are.php And you may have seen the risk ratio given by them....0.19 (0.07 - 0.55 95% confidence intervals). Actually there is more data, but I was letting WHO & Cochrane cherry pick their data. My complaint is Lancet ignoring it and not even citing this. There is another WHO related study funded by Unitaid. https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-148845/v1 This meta-analysis investigated ivermectin in 18 randomized clinical trials (2282 patients) identified through systematic searches of PUBMED, EMBASE, MedRxiv and trial registries "In six randomized trials of moderate or severe infection, there was a 75% reduction in mortality" And my complaint is Lancet ignores all these studies and talks about 24 volunteer study.

Want to know what scares me most...this..... Lancet on Feb 04, 2021 published an article on Ivermectin https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00024-9/fulltext And to quote "The most recent study on ivermectin is a pilot clinical trial by Chaccour et al." and they refer to a study by Chaccour that has "Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive ivermectin, 400 mcg/kg, single dose (n = 12) or placebo (n = 12)." That is 24 volunteers study... Now what would you think? The best study with Ivermectin is with 24 subjects? But WHO itself has a study: https://covid-nma.com/living_data/index.php?comparison=36 I can count 9 RCTs... can you? Most larger than 24 subjects... Can you? Why cannot Lancet? If you go to WHO all cause mortality with Ivermectin https://covid-nma.com/living_data/index.php?comparison=36#images2-3 Do you see 0.19 risk ratio? Why cannot Lancet? Is this the best Lancet (the best medical journal supposedly) can deliver? Thats what scares me most.

I think that statement is hopefully correct but not necessarily correct though that is the mainstream media opinion. https://www.timesofisrael.com/transmission-rate-nears-1-as-officials-warn-purim-parties-could-halt-reopening/ Israel’s virus transmission rate has continued to rise and is extremely close to showing expanded spread, data released by a military taskforce showed on Sunday. "In its latest report, the Military Intelligence taskforce said Israel’s coronavirus transmission rate was once again nearing 1, standing at 0.99. The rate had dipped to a low of 0.8 earlier this month." https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/weekly-hospital-admissions-covid-per-million?tab=chart&stackMode=absolute&time=2020-11-22..latest&country=USA~ISR The Israeli new hospitalizations are still very high...133 per million for Israel vs 42 for US as of February 21st.

CDC guidance Updated Jan 14, 2021 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/participate-in-activities.html "If you want to spend time with people who don’t live with you, outdoors is the safer choice!" CDC even has this picture with old people (notice masks in the picture!): "Inside, at least 6 feet apart, Well ventilated room, Wearing mask" Now that is clarified. It is time to think whether stay at home orders Increase or decrease "outdoors is safer choice!" and "at least 6 feet apart" guidance from CDC.

California death toll at 45,000, up 15,000 in less than a month https://www.sacbee.com/news/coronavirus/article249175970.html

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/deadliest-days-of-the-pandemic-covid-19-kills-nearly-15000-in-california-in-january/ar-BB1dikha Deadliest days of the pandemic: COVID-19 kills nearly 15,000 in California in January More Californians died of COVID-19 in January than any other month of the pandemic, data from The Times tracker show, with L.A. County continuing to bear the brunt of the virus' toll. https://www.ijpr.org/health-and-medicine/2020-11-16/california-clamps-down-newsom-announces-new-restrictions-to-curb-surging-coronavirus (November 16) In throwing an “emergency brake,” Gov. Gavin Newsom orders an even broader mask mandate and further restricts access to businesses, restaurants and other operations for the vast majority of Californians.