What about omicron? These are the last three paragraphs from Ben Krishna:
quote
But will HCQ [hydroxychloroquine] be effective against omicron?
I struggle to see the benefits of treating omicron infections with HCQ. In the University of Glasgow study, the researchers show that omicron enters cells via endosomes more so than other variants, but they do not show that omicron is limited to using endosomes. It can still enter from the cell surface. Using HCQ to stop omicron entering via endosomes would therefore only marginally limit the virus from entering cells.
To show that HCQ is effective against omicron, scientists need to infect cells with omicron in the presence and absence of HCQ and [demonstrate] a significant reduction in [the infectivity of the omicron strain.] If this shows that HCQ is effective against omicron [in vitro], it would be sensible to test HCQ in a clinical trial.
However, unlike in March 2020 when HCQ was first suggested as a treatment, we have plenty of [other] drugs to treat COVID including antivirals, such as molnupiravir and remdesivir, anti-inflammatories, such as dexamethasone, and antibody therapies.
Maybe you're thinking "Who's Ben Krishna?"
quote
Ben Krishna, Postdoctoral Researcher, Immunology and Virology, University of Cambridge.
There's no reference here to what "82" posted at the very top of this thread: i.e., the research report from Karin Ried (et al) that was published online on November 25, 2021, at Cureus. That's not at issue here. It's not any part of what Ben Krishna is talking about. It's in Ben's rearview mirror (so to speak) and so far back in time that Ben probably wasn't even thinking about Ried, et al, when he created this report for The Conversation. If Ben even knew about Ried, et al.
It looks to me that Ried, et al, was before omicron. "The trial was conducted in Australia and Turkey between January and June 2021." That's Ried, et al. And Ried, et al, makes no direct reference to "omicron" or "delta" or to any specific strain(s) of the SARS-Cov-2 (Covid) virus.
I won't say that this entirely obviates or obsoletes this discussion, as it has unfolded up to this point, but tell me that omicron isn't something of a game changer, without telling me that omicron isn't something of a game changer.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-31-2022).]
Dr. Stella wants an apology too. Remember the Houston doctor who said she has successfully treated covid patients with HCQ? I remember a few here attacking her.
Dr. Stella Demands an Apology after Studies Prove She was Right on HCQ
Dr. Stella wants an apology too. Remember the Houston doctor who said she has successfully treated covid patients with HCQ? I remember a few here attacking her.
NONE of that has anything to do with Dr. Immanuel.
Oh, I think it quite aptly demonstrates the level of fact checking (less than zero) done at that site regarding their subject material... which includes Dr. Immanuel and her dubious claims.
Yep, it never ceases to amaze me how some people seem to be able to continually circumvent the rules and stick around.
I remember you attacked her previously by quoting some doctor in Canada. Again, you haven't once said ANYTHING disproving HER, not once. Yet you still cannot accept that maybe, just maybe, she was right. And, god forbid, Trump was right. Oh NO!
David and Justin would like to thank you for once again confirming their study.
Okay so what am I missing? They didn’t control for a population without the HCQ treatment, and they noted that Vitamin D seemed to be the largest differentiator in terms of severity and outcome. They note HCQ as safe and effective due to the meta-analysis of other studies, like I mentioned.
So what did I not understand? They didn’t actually test HCQ for treatment, they tested a combination of drugs with vitamin C vs. that combination without vitamin C.
Also squawed about "no control group" without even noting or understanding what the study group was.
Published data is absolutely wasted on people that lack the intellectual ability to evaluate it.
quote
Originally posted by theBDub:
Okay so what am I missing? They didn’t control for a population without the HCQ treatment, and they noted that Vitamin D seemed to be the largest differentiator in terms of severity and outcome. They note HCQ as safe and effective due to the meta-analysis of other studies, like I mentioned.
So what did I not understand? They didn’t actually test HCQ for treatment, they tested a combination of drugs with vitamin C vs. that combination without vitamin C.
That you were having an online conversation with someone that does not merit even a single second of your time.
Actually, I think you did. You were being too kind. Or indulgent. Extending the courtesy of conversation to someone whose sole purpose is to use you as a kind of stage prop, while he churns out endless and endlessly petty, insulting and thoroughly asinine commentary about you, such as "[you] lack the intellectual ability bla bla bla . . ."
Carry on, though. I just want to provide some "in game analysis" for the viewing audience.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-01-2022).]
If one isn’t bothered by a user calling others idiots in a variety of colorful language and saying someone is “braying like a jackass,” I don’t see why they’d be bothered by someone else calling that same person a jackass.
If one isn’t bothered by a user calling others idiots in a variety of colorful language and saying someone is “braying like a jackass,” I don’t see why they’d be bothered by someone else calling that same person a jackass.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
You're not seeing the irony, but that's understood.
.... but, as I pointed out, your lack of competence in this has been absolutely no barrier to your inflated self assessment that you know better than the authors, researchers and publishers of that medical study.... (See: Dunning - Kruger reference)
quote
Originally posted by theBDub: There is no control group in the study. They have some figures shown from a meta-analysis, but without looking at each of those, I couldn’t claim the meta-analysis to have any value.
Has this been peer-reviewed?
Since this is likely to be extremely tedious and also likely to be completely unproductive with you, let's start with what should be the simplest thing:
IF you had the competence to understand what you presumably read you would NOT have ridiculously asked "Has this been peer reviewed?"
1.) The header of the document clearly shows that the study was published by PMC, US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. The NLM / NIH peer reviews all studies before they publish them. In this instance it shows that NLM / NIH chose this study from PMC as they routinely do.
2.) PMC, (PubMed Central), also a part of NIH / NLM, receives medical publications and studies from all over the United States and the world. PubMed peer reviews the manuscripts they receive prior to them publishing them to the NLM
3.) The header of the document also clearly shows that PubMed / PMC received the study from Cureus which utilizes a "post publication peer review system" which the instant matter clearly survived and did so with sufficient credential to be selected and further reviewed by the aforementioned NLM / PMC
4.) And finally, the document also clearly shows that the study received review and approval by the following FIVE entities:
All told this particular study has been peer reviewed at least EIGHT TIMES...
Even a casual, lay, reader should have at least questioned where the study came from as evidenced by it's header, but you are completely oblivious and incurious.....
...and your clear incompetence with the subject matter at hand is then demonstrated with your question: Has this been peer-reviewed?
I'll leave you to go back again and try desperately to ferret out what the "control group" in that study is.
It's clearly there and it's as obvious as the peer review you aren't competent in this area to understand.
..
OH, and as I said before:
Dr. Stella Immanuel is still a practicing, board certified, licensed, pediatric and emergency medicine physician in the state of Texas.
She has no actions taken against her by the Texas state licensing or medical ethics boards for any violations or complaints.
She reportedly still successfully treats her patients with SARS COV2 using a regimen that includes HCQ
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-02-2022).]
A case study in how you could argue a point without anyone else being pleased that they witnessed it, or interested in anything further you might have to say on the topic at hand, or about any other topic, or in any other setting or context.
Originally posted by maryjane: The big debate was not HCQ, AZM, and zinc with or without vitamin C being used as a treatment.
It was touted by many not as a treatment, but as a therapeutic preventative.
The "BIG" debate ? Is that like the "BIG" lie ? A debate is a debate, a lie is a lie.
My wife (you know Cindi) got Covid. She is 64, overweight, was a life long smoker quit ten years ago) but still gets short of breath.
She did not take HCQ, AZM, zinc, nor vitamin C as a preventative. Neither did I. She took them as a treatment. Not enough repeated data to make it a study nor a contention of "debate". She masked up, stayed in the bedroom away from me (me on the couch), and was over it in less than a week.
I did not mask up and never got it, even though our home ventilation system recycled our air over and over.
The HCQ she took (two pills a day for seven days) was full strength. Afterwards, she got more HCQ at perhaps 25% strength, as a preventative.
Above I took issue with your description of the "BIG" debate. There never has been a debate. Many offered a different belief but were not allowed to debate it. FaceSpace, Twatter, Giggle, and every other "public square" social media sites would not allow a different opinion other than the ruling government Junta. You would be "banned" for straying from other than the official narrative. Never mind that the dissenting opinions are now accepted "science".
Heh, science. Dr Farce has been wrong on so many occasions. Yet, he says that to question him is to question science. Questioning science is what scientists do ! The Earth used to be flat and those that questioned it caught hell. The Sun used to revolve around Earth. There was going to be a new Ice Age. Now the oceans are going to flood low sea level land masses.
Let me ask you this. If R-12 freon was causing a new Ice Age, why not bring it back to combat Global Warming ?
Heh, science. The Sun used to revolve around Earth. There was going to be a new Ice Age. Now the oceans are going to flood low sea level land masses.
Let me ask you this. If R-12 freon was causing a new Ice Age, why not bring it back to combat Global Warming ?
FREON depletes the ozone [ O3 ] by release of chlorine [ Cl ] and causes cancers by allowing in UV rays sorry but little effect on temps that was CO2 + methane
AND NO the godbothered SAID the sun went round the earth it did NOT they also said a lot of other stuff that was also very wrong
A case study in how you could argue a point without anyone else being pleased that they witnessed it, or interested in anything further you might have to say on the topic at hand, or about any other topic, or in any other setting or context.
Exactly. It appears that having a healthy discussion and/or respectful exchange of opinions is a totally foreign concept for some people.
The big con, convincing people by force, to believe...anything at all. Martyr Giordano Bruno Bruno at the stake Bruno 422 years of enlightenment, still under a thumb, power by gun barrel. Perhaps a few dozen millennia of evolution will bring peace on Earth.
Originally posted by cliffw: My wife... got Covid... She did not take HCQ, AZM, zinc, nor vitamin C as a preventative... She took them as a treatment... She... was over it in less than a week.
Was the attending physician Dr. Stella Immanuel by any chance?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-03-2022).]
Originally posted by ray b: FREON depletes the ozone [ O3 ] by release of chlorine [ Cl ] and causes cancers by allowing in UV rays sorry but little effect on temps that was CO2 + methane
First of all, everything causes some kind cancer, in one way or another, or not. I / we have not been discussing cancer. Many people worship the Sun tan UV rays and do not get skin cancer.
Secondly, freon was the scare boogie man for the new Ice Age. Changing refrigerant fortunes for manufactures.
Thirdly, explain why you enter not just cancer, but also methane into the discussion. I am curious.
Originally posted by cliffw: My wife (you know Cindi) got Covid. She is 64, overweight, was a life long smoker quit ten years ago) but still gets short of breath.
She did not take HCQ, AZM, zinc, nor vitamin C as a preventative. Neither did I. She took them as a treatment. Not enough repeated data to make it a study nor a contention of "debate". She masked up, stayed in the bedroom away from me (me on the couch), and was over it in less than a week.
So was my wife. She took nothing but tylenol. Vaccinated x2.
First of all, everything causes some kind cancer, in one way or another, or not. I / we have not been discussing cancer. Many people worship the Sun tan UV rays and do not get skin cancer.
Secondly, freon was the scare boogie man for the new Ice Age. Changing refrigerant fortunes for manufactures.
Thirdly, explain why you enter not just cancer, but also methane into the discussion. I am curious.
did you know we are still in a down cycle in solar out put so less then the predicted rates of warming you started on freon I simply said it was about O3 vs Cl from f-12 not warming but UV rays
and if you check cancer data from Aus and NZ the up tic was a real problem as it can kill you for reasons of flow patterns the O3 hole was far worse down south then in the arctic
methane is blowing up out of the melting permafrost NOVA last nite had a show on it methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas in the short term but does not last as long as CO2 does in the air problem with methane is it can cause feed back cycles where the warming tundra produces more methane that causes more warming that causes more methane release fast in short time periods then just CO2
mother nature really does not care about the greed or political BS behind the oil corpRATS AND BASIC CHEMISTRY DOES NOT CARE ABOUT Gop DOGMA
Originally posted by rinselberg: Was the attending physician Dr. Stella Immanuel by any chance?
No. Her family was the attending quack. We used a street pharmacist. Delivered in less than twelve hours from the yonder side (east) of her office. By a drug runner who did it for free.
True story. I was asked if I would allow my wife the treatment before hand.
Me, being the genius that I am, asked the genius that I am. HCQ has been in use for over 50, 60 years ? Very proven safe drug. Zinc, vitamin C (D), safe also.
HCQ, ... generic now. rinselberg, how much are you paying for the double shot of 700 million Kung Flu vaccines ?
Geez, look at the other articles on this site. 
?
