CV19 - Cure Worse Than The Disease? (Vol 19)

[mko9]

r3g said:

Hahah! They don't like their BS pointing out, do they ?

Edited by r3g on Tuesday 21st May 20:42

There was a whole period where the MSM and the powers that be were all confused and concerned by mysterious "breakthrough" covid cases amongst the vaccinated. How can this be?! Nothing to be concerned about though.

I guess that never happened either. I'm probably making it all up.

Edited by mko9 on Wednesday 22 May 16:53

[Elysium]

Roderick Spode said:

Infected Blood Scandal thread.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

Potentially a many decade and multiple government cover-up of a long brewing scandal. It wryly amuses me to see one of our regular sealions on there, calling out government conspiracy and cover-up as unacceptable, and must never happen again then comes in here and delivers the usual one-liners about tinfoil hatters and conspiracy theorists. Honestly, Carlsberg don't do irony, but if they did...

Interestingly Andrew Bridgen was the MP that first championed the plight of wrongly convicted post office workers. Another scandal that is currently in the news.

He raised the issue in 2010. He was dismissed and the prosecutions continued for another 5 years:

https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252513544/The-...

I don’t rule out the possibility that he is right about vaccine harms.

[Pupp]

Elysium said:

Roderick Spode said:

Infected Blood Scandal thread.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

Potentially a many decade and multiple government cover-up of a long brewing scandal. It wryly amuses me to see one of our regular sealions on there, calling out government conspiracy and cover-up as unacceptable, and must never happen again then comes in here and delivers the usual one-liners about tinfoil hatters and conspiracy theorists. Honestly, Carlsberg don't do irony, but if they did...

Interestingly Andrew Bridgen was the MP that first championed the plight of wrongly convicted post office workers. Another scandal that is currently in the news.

He raised the issue in 2010. He was dismissed and the prosecutions continued for another 5 years:

https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252513544/The-...

I don’t rule out the possibility that he is right about vaccine harms.

What’s encouraging, albeit far too late in the PO case and in the blood products case, is that the current public inquiries are effectively exposing the real facts (even if the government appear to be squirming on the compensation issues) - hopefully the Covid Inquiry will proceed similarly despite cynicism aired about this here.

[Chromegrill]

isaldiri said:

alangla said:

While I can accept that things like Dexamethasone took a while to discover as a treatment, it still seems odd that something as extreme as forced ventilation was initially preferred as a treatment to the high volume oxygen that appeared to be favoured later. One would have thought that ventilation would have been a last resort after everything else had been tried.

I suppose there must have been a reason why the medics defaulted to invasive ventilation so quickly rather than just relying on high flow oxygen - perhaps experience from sars1 or similar from severe flu cases? One of the actual medical bods (chromegrill perhaps should he ever deign to drop in to do more than just hand out one of his lectures to the ignorant) would have been far better placed to answer it.

All things considered though, as far as early treatment protocol was concerned, I'm still of the opinion whatever was done was being done for the best of intentions even if it ultimately ended up not working so I don't really think that should be faulted. Certainly not as much as some of the other public health cockups.... That said, it would certainly be of interest to know how much pushback there might have been from icu doctors though to that early use.....

If you want a short answer, it's neatly explained here by a professor of respiratory medicine.

[isaldiri]

Chromegrill said:

If you want a short answer, it's neatly explained here by a professor of respiratory medicine.

That was interesting - appreciated. Could you expand on how both therapies proved in the recovery trial then as that would be the acid test of how useful it actually was compared to necessity due to less full ICU/ventilation capacity?

[Elysium]

Chromegrill said:

isaldiri said:

alangla said:

While I can accept that things like Dexamethasone took a while to discover as a treatment, it still seems odd that something as extreme as forced ventilation was initially preferred as a treatment to the high volume oxygen that appeared to be favoured later. One would have thought that ventilation would have been a last resort after everything else had been tried.

I suppose there must have been a reason why the medics defaulted to invasive ventilation so quickly rather than just relying on high flow oxygen - perhaps experience from sars1 or similar from severe flu cases? One of the actual medical bods (chromegrill perhaps should he ever deign to drop in to do more than just hand out one of his lectures to the ignorant) would have been far better placed to answer it.

All things considered though, as far as early treatment protocol was concerned, I'm still of the opinion whatever was done was being done for the best of intentions even if it ultimately ended up not working so I don't really think that should be faulted. Certainly not as much as some of the other public health cockups.... That said, it would certainly be of interest to know how much pushback there might have been from icu doctors though to that early use.....

If you want a short answer, it's neatly explained here by a professor of respiratory medicine.

Thanks for posting.

That seems to back up what I have read elsewhere. Survival rates following intubation for COVID were initially quite low. During the pandemic we shifted away from intubation to less invasive oxygen therapy and mortality improved.

[isaldiri]

Chromegrill said:

If you want a short answer, it's neatly explained here by a professor of respiratory medicine.

Also if you don't mind I'm going to reply to your post in the other thread here before I draw any ire there for mentioning covid as it's fine for some but not others.

Chromegrill said:

isaldiri said:

And while it might be a little difficult to know what to make of a researcher who likes to argue most medical research is flawed, it's also a little difficult to know what to make of someone who likes to argue most medical research is sound but who also chooses to ignore or dismiss any studies or results that might have outcomes that conflict with what they believe in.

Synthesis of evidence is a bit like putting a jigsaw puzzle together in which you don't know what the final picture will look like (that would be like waiting for complete 100% clear picture, which in reality will never happen) and you're missing some of the pieces. If you get a piece that doesn't seem to fit, you don't ignore it without first critiquing it to understand why it doesn't seem to fit. It might force you to change your impression of the entire picture, but on the other hand it might turn out to be poorly conducted or simply not relevant enough to take much note of. That's a bit easier to manage than the alternative of changing your mind every five minutes when something comes along that is a bit different to the last thing you read about.

Case in point - a recent paper in an obscure medical journal argued that because not many COVID tests were undertaken in the UK during the first wave of the pandemic, the number of deaths at the time was disproportionate to the number of tests and according to the author, this proved there had been a brief and covered-up policy of intentional mass euthanasia. Sure, that doesn't square with my understanding of what actually happened, and I find the paper grotesquely offensive. But its findings can safely be dismissed because it demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the context and made extraordinary and demonstrably false claims that anyone familiar with the subject would see through a mile off. Interestingly however, it seems to have completely taken in a certain retired nurse educator with a sizeable following on Youtube, which raises wider questions about his credibility.

In common with many people, I have a fairly confident belief that the world is not flat but is circular (OK it's splitting hairs but I don't think it's perfectly round but probably a bit squished at the poles and bulges in the middle). Consequently when studies come along that suggest the world is flat I tend not to take them too seriously, and I expect I could find fairly significant reasons to doubt their legitimacy if I reviewed them. So yes, I would dismiss them and that might well look to you like I was doing so because they conflicted with my pre-existing world view. If a piece of copper-bottomed, gold-plated evidence came along that proved beyond any possible doubt that the world was flat I hope I'd be persuaded to change my mind about it.

The issue I suppose is this 'synthesis of evidence' you talk about in your post absolutely should happen as you describe but in practice, more often than not it seems that scientists/researchers are simply ignoring anything that doesn't fit irrespective of attempting to understand quite why it doesn't if it doesn't fit a prior belief.

wrt to the midozalam paper you mention above - sure I don't disagree at all it was a paper riddled with all manner of problems with a very suspect conclusion being drawn. however much I didn't agree with the study's conclusions though, I'd like to think I gave it a reasonable chance of proving itself to be a reasonable conclusion based on what was presented when I read through it and also that someone reasonable (irrespective of whether he might agree with me) would not find my arguments for dismissing that paper as entirely illogical and biased. More relevantly perhaps, even if it had been a paper or study that agreed with something I believed was right, I'd like to hope that I would still have pointed out that particular paper was flawed to the point of total irrelevance and I'd not be cheerily trotting that out as 'proof'.

It wouldn't the first or the last time however that a research paper that people jumped on was a rather flawed and incorrect one either at any rate Like say people jumping on the bangladesh mask article or some of the other similar ones to hold it up as 'proof' that masks worked despite the obvious issues with that conclusion. or indeed when people bring up the point that 'if you want myocarditis get covid rather than the vaccine' and ignore that age stratification of risks means that conflating vaccine risks to younger groups relative to overall population infection risks is being intentionally misleading about the risk/benefit of vaccines to some. Confirmation bias is something that humans are affected by to a greater or lesser degree after all. One can but try to keep that in mind sometimes and perhaps not always be quite so certain that one is necessarily right because of <insert job title>....

Edited by isaldiri on Thursday 23 May 01:44

[Elysium]

Interesting article here:

https://brownstone.org/articles/what-really-happen...

Fauci and others at the centre of the global public health response have been discredited following confirmation that they supported gain of function research in Wuhan that looks very likely to have created COVID.

In that context, knowing that they were in a state of panic when it first appeared that there actions might be revealed, why were they so supportive of lockdown?

The idea that they wanted to slow the disease and keep us from becoming immune until vaccination, not to save lives, but to monetise the mRNA platform does not sound all that incredible.

A tiny group of experts was at the heart of this and I am not sure we have seen very much evidence that they deserve trust.

Edited by Elysium on Thursday 23 May 07:55

[Boringvolvodriver]

Elysium said:

Interesting article here:

https://brownstone.org/articles/what-really-happen...

Fauci and others at the centre of the global public health response have been discredited following confirmation that they supported gain of function research in Wuhan that looks very likely to have created COVID.

In that context, knowing that they were in a state of panic when it first appeared that there actions might be revealed, why were they so supportive of lockdown?

The idea that they wanted to slow the disease and keep us immune until vaccination, not to save lives, but to monetise the mRNA platform does not sound all that incredible.

A tiny group of experts was at the heart of this and I am not sure we have seen very much evidence that they deserve trust.

Interesting article indeed although if the premise is correct, then it won’t get much coverage.

Confirmation bias could lead to one person saying, yup, that is definitely the case, whilst another says that it is yet another conspiracy theory.

I am not convinced we will ever know the truth about what happened and why decisions were taken as they were all across the world. The UK Public Inquiry certainly won’t for sure!

[RemarkLima]

Elysium said:

A tiny group of experts was at the heart of this and I am not sure we have seen very much evidence that they deserve trust.

Edited by Elysium on Thursday 23 May 07:55

Hang on a second!? All scientists are apolitical, work on for the science itself and have 100% integrity?

[Elysium]

Boringvolvodriver said:

Interesting article indeed although if the premise is correct, then it won’t get much coverage.

Confirmation bias could lead to one person saying, yup, that is definitely the case, whilst another says that it is yet another conspiracy theory.

I am not convinced we will ever know the truth about what happened and why decisions were taken as they were all across the world. The UK Public Inquiry certainly won’t for sure!

My view at this point is that it is more likely that, knowing they had some responsibility for the crisis, those in charge of public health wanted to create a response that made them heroes. They wanted to over compensate.

A response that saved lives AND deployed new technologies that essentially justified the sort of ‘edgy’ research that had backfired would be ideal.

Lockdown until vaccination is the strategy that achieves that most directly.

[pavarotti1980]

isaldiri said:

That was interesting - appreciated. Could you expand on how both therapies proved in the recovery trial then as that would be the acid test of how useful it actually was compared to necessity due to less full ICU/ventilation capacity?

CPAP and HFO were not part of the Recovery trial, that focused on pharmaceutical interventions

https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04381936
https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN50189673
https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/t...

https://www.recoverytrial.net/results

RECOVERY RS which piggy backed in a way RECOVERY at Warwick University is here though
https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/med/research/ctu/tri...

[isaldiri]

pavarotti1980 said:

isaldiri said:

That was interesting - appreciated. Could you expand on how both therapies proved in the recovery trial then as that would be the acid test of how useful it actually was compared to necessity due to less full ICU/ventilation capacity?

CPAP and HFO were not part of the Recovery trial, that focused on pharmaceutical interventions

https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04381936
https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN50189673
https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/t...

https://www.recoverytrial.net/results

RECOVERY RS which piggy backed in a way RECOVERY at Warwick University is here though
https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/med/research/ctu/tri...

Thanks - ok it wasn't immediately obvious that recovery rs wasn't recovery but appreciated for pointing that out. so CPAP was found to be useful but not high flow - the trial showed that cpap was helpful in not requiring ICU/invasive ventilation however it didn't quite answer alangla's earlier point about whether invasive ventilation was doing anything 'worse' so to speak in the first place and might/should not have been used quite so much?

[wc98]

Elysium said:

COVID was much worse than the flu for the elderly and unwell, but considerably less dangerous than flu for the young and healthy.

I don’t think this was because the virus was inherently more dangerous. I suspect it was more because the vulnerable population had no prior immunity.

I’m using the past tense here because everyone has now been exposed to COVID and because of the immunity most of us have it is now closer to a heavy cold than the flu.

This^. I've got it for the second time and it really isn't pleasant. Never had the flu so can't compare but it's much worse than a cold. Took a half day holiday from work yesterday and am off sick today and i hate being off sick, would never happen with a cold. Couldn't even get the lid off a coffee jar this morning.

The first time i had it i was seriously out the game the first few days (ruined Christmas two years ago for me) and hallucinating the first day. I will be 54 this year, certainly wouldn't like to get it in my 70's or older.

I appreciate everyone reacts different to it and many won't even know they have had it but there will be plenty that will feel worse than me as well.

[r3g]

wc98 said:

This^. I've got it for the second time and it really isn't pleasant. Never had the flu so can't compare but it's much worse than a cold. Took a half day holiday from work yesterday and am off sick today and i hate being off sick, would never happen with a cold. Couldn't even get the lid off a coffee jar this morning.

The first time i had it i was seriously out the game the first few days (ruined Christmas two years ago for me) and hallucinating the first day. I will be 54 this year, certainly wouldn't like to get it in my 70's or older.

I appreciate everyone reacts different to it and many won't even know they have had it but there will be plenty that will feel worse than me as well.

wc98 on 17 April said:

I had 3 vaccinations, won't have anymore even if it's the black plague the next time.

No, scratch that, probably just a coincidence.

[jshell]

I try to avoid deep rabbit-holes surounding Covid, but when checking timelines on the vaccines it seems Moderna were working on a vaccine for Covid in Jan 2020 prior to their being more than 2 Chinese and 1 US fatality. Given the fatality rates of common Influenza, how did they predict the need for $$$$$$$$ of investment for a vaccine that would be rolled-out to billions worldwide.

Trump's wife tweeted that a deal had been signed with Moderna on the 13th January 2020

I don't think that we should underestimate what this means.

[andyA700]

I have posted figures regarding the ADR reports into injuries and deaths from the AZ vaccines. There was an enquiry in London on 22nd May where the full extent of the injuries and deaths were revealed.

https://x.com/CarpentrySol/status/1793551808453075...

[rider73]

andyA700 said:

I have posted figures regarding the ADR reports into injuries and deaths from the AZ vaccines. There was an enquiry in London on 22nd May where the full extent of the injuries and deaths were revealed.

https://x.com/CarpentrySol/status/1793551808453075...

I wonder where the BBC headline is for this? Hmm buried

[RSTurboPaul]

One presumes Mr Hancock has a sense of humour, as otherwise...

https://x.com/karma44921039/status/179397301269558...

[r3g]

Come on Paul.... That's so obviously fake I'm quite disappointed in you. Look at the name header formatting and the speech bubbles - or rather lack of in the bottom 2 quotes. You're just giving away free ammo to the rabble-rousers with that.