CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 13)
Discussion
TheJimi said:
TypeRTim said:
Tuna said:
Medicine isn't engineering. You can't "crank out" a fix.
They will absolutely be monitoring effects of just about every remedy out there on the market - the pharma industry is quite good at that, spotting when one medicine has an interesting side effect on another group (or in extreme cases, unexpected benefits - like Viagra).
But that sort of evidence takes months or even years to gather. It's a statistical nightmare, and when the progress of the disease in a single person can take months, it will naturally take multiples of that to test, prove, identify causes and symptoms.
On top of that, some things are just physically impossible to change. At the base level, the chemical reactions you're trying to alter may be sufficiently close to reactions your body depends on that you cannot disrupt them. The cure really would be worse than the disease. Or we just don't have the means to repair stuff that's broken.
You mean like crank out a vaccine for a 'novel coronavirus' which has never been seen before in humans, using delivery technology that has never been implemented in mass vaccination regimes in humans, less than 18 months after the initial outbreak? That kind of 'crank out a fix'They will absolutely be monitoring effects of just about every remedy out there on the market - the pharma industry is quite good at that, spotting when one medicine has an interesting side effect on another group (or in extreme cases, unexpected benefits - like Viagra).
But that sort of evidence takes months or even years to gather. It's a statistical nightmare, and when the progress of the disease in a single person can take months, it will naturally take multiples of that to test, prove, identify causes and symptoms.
On top of that, some things are just physically impossible to change. At the base level, the chemical reactions you're trying to alter may be sufficiently close to reactions your body depends on that you cannot disrupt them. The cure really would be worse than the disease. Or we just don't have the means to repair stuff that's broken.
Edited by TypeRTim on Thursday 29th July 11:51
Frik said:
It's all a conspiracy!
Or maybe there just aren't enough good studies that prove its effectiveness, although some are still ongoing.
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/1...
Conspiracy is too strong a word. Sometimes an agenda is put in place and it takes a lot to divert from it. I'd rather ascribe much of what's gone on to incompetence and/or capacity ahead of malice. The sheer number of U-turns and miscommunications and changes in policy by all governments tells you it is not an organised situation at the moment.Or maybe there just aren't enough good studies that prove its effectiveness, although some are still ongoing.
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/1...
isaldiri said:
I don't think it's such a surprise either though. Flu antivirals like tamiflu aren't particularly effective for example. unlike bacterial infections, viral infections aren't easily dealt with without destroying lots of your own cells they are replicating in.
Most medication available tends to be for treatment of symptoms rather than for the viral infection causing said symptoms. It just seems to be a class of treatments that is very difficult typically to do cheaply and effectively.
P.S Pfizer announced revenue of $33b expected for the vaccines for the year, not profit. You seem to have it slightly in for them (not entirely unreasonably in many respects) but to be fair, they took a good financial bet to put a lot of their own cash into it initially so fair play for leveraging that success now too.
I think it's fair to say I'm not Pfizer's biggest fan no - a combination of well timed press releases suggesting they can make more money out of the vaccine about the time that the AZ clotting issue was being discovered, and the fact that they are too close to the authorities in the US for comfort. Sort of like Boeing and the FAA, with various board members taking positions high up in the CDC. For instance the $33 billion figure was mentioned in a CNN article yesterday, along with their announcement about the effectiveness of the booster jab they had developed, and when you clicked on the backup link, it took you to Pfizer's Q2 Financial Report. At least link to a different study and try not to make it too obvious folks. Most medication available tends to be for treatment of symptoms rather than for the viral infection causing said symptoms. It just seems to be a class of treatments that is very difficult typically to do cheaply and effectively.
P.S Pfizer announced revenue of $33b expected for the vaccines for the year, not profit. You seem to have it slightly in for them (not entirely unreasonably in many respects) but to be fair, they took a good financial bet to put a lot of their own cash into it initially so fair play for leveraging that success now too.
Edited by isaldiri on Thursday 29th July 11:46
I do get that it's not as simple as just pointing to a disease and saying "Develop a pill for that", however I'm struggling to see how it is that much more complex than developing a vaccine for a novel virus, and we've had about 7 or 8 companies develop those. Tamiflu wasn't great I'll grant you, but neither were the flu vaccines compared to what we have for COVID.
It just seems strange to me in the last 18 months of throwing all the money under the sun at a problem, we haven't at least found something which will take the edge off the symptoms. My go to cold remedy, Nurofen Cold and Flu doesn't kill the bug in the slightest, but it does make the experience less unpleasant. Granted it was useless when I had SARS2 a while ago, but Anadin Extra wasn't, and meant I could at least sleep.
The of course you have the fact that as soon as someone identifies a possible treatment (such as those we don't mention), there seems to be a queue of scientists waiting to say that it doesn't work. I just find it a bit odd that we've put a lot of eggs in one basket, that's all.
Frik said:
It's all a conspiracy!
Or maybe there just aren't enough good studies that prove its effectiveness, although some are still ongoing.
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/1...
The fact that 18 months on that "there aren't any good studies" is telling in itself. Or maybe there just aren't enough good studies that prove its effectiveness, although some are still ongoing.
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/1...
Reminds me of the vit D fiasco - there were no downsides to trying it; it's cheap; it's a known requirement for a healthy immune system and a known fact that vit D levels in the UK are poor, especially coming out of winter; Hancock lied about it having been tried and failing; Hancock eventually issued small doses to care home residents "for healthy bones", knowing that the doses were too small to make a noticeable difference to immune response. Since then, nothing as far as I can tell.
Vit D was never going to be a cure, but my goodness could it ever have done a good job of helping to keep people out of hospital. Instead, months into the crisis, it was a requirement that nothing short of fully completed double blind studies would be enough to warrant trying to up the population's vit D levels. A requirement noticeably missing from the never before tried lockdowns when they were imposed.
I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, just good old fashioned moral corruption from those with vested interests.
Boringvolvodriver said:
77th Brigade said:
A few things seem obvious:
- There is a nasty virus.
- We have to deal with nasty virus.
- Normal planning for dealing with nasty virus is badly affected by:
--- Incompetence.
--- Politics.
--- Very large vested interests trying to take advantage of the situation either financially, politically or societally.
I believe that we're in a world of s
t of our own making.
I will add - There is a nasty virus.
- We have to deal with nasty virus.
- Normal planning for dealing with nasty virus is badly affected by:
--- Incompetence.
--- Politics.
--- Very large vested interests trying to take advantage of the situation either financially, politically or societally.
I believe that we're in a world of s
t of our own making. —- a population, large numbers of which, don’t appear to have the ability to think critically and would on the face of it are easily led (or brainwashed perhaps?)
——a MSM and journalists who don’t appear to be able to do their job
I think you’ll find that a large numbers have thought critically and are happy with their decision.
You only have to look at the massive take up of the vaccine.
Alucidnation said:
Boringvolvodriver said:
77th Brigade said:
A few things seem obvious:
- There is a nasty virus.
- We have to deal with nasty virus.
- Normal planning for dealing with nasty virus is badly affected by:
--- Incompetence.
--- Politics.
--- Very large vested interests trying to take advantage of the situation either financially, politically or societally.
I believe that we're in a world of st of our own making.
I will add - There is a nasty virus.
- We have to deal with nasty virus.
- Normal planning for dealing with nasty virus is badly affected by:
--- Incompetence.
--- Politics.
--- Very large vested interests trying to take advantage of the situation either financially, politically or societally.
I believe that we're in a world of s
t of our own making. —- a population, large numbers of which, don’t appear to have the ability to think critically and would on the face of it are easily led (or brainwashed perhaps?)
——a MSM and journalists who don’t appear to be able to do their job
I think you’ll find that a large numbers have thought critically and are happy with their decision.
You only have to look at the massive take up of the vaccine.
Maybe have a read of Laura Dodsworth book and see what some of the psychologists have said about the tactics used.
Btw - have people thought critically about the vaccine or just followed the herd?
jagnet said:
Frik said:
It's all a conspiracy!
Or maybe there just aren't enough good studies that prove its effectiveness, although some are still ongoing.
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/1...
The fact that 18 months on that "there aren't any good studies" is telling in itself. Or maybe there just aren't enough good studies that prove its effectiveness, although some are still ongoing.
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/1...
Reminds me of the vit D fiasco - there were no downsides to trying it; it's cheap; it's a known requirement for a healthy immune system and a known fact that vit D levels in the UK are poor, especially coming out of winter; Hancock lied about it having been tried and failing; Hancock eventually issued small doses to care home residents "for healthy bones", knowing that the doses were too small to make a noticeable difference to immune response. Since then, nothing as far as I can tell.
Vit D was never going to be a cure, but my goodness could it ever have done a good job of helping to keep people out of hospital. Instead, months into the crisis, it was a requirement that nothing short of fully completed double blind studies would be enough to warrant trying to up the population's vit D levels. A requirement noticeably missing from the never before tried lockdowns when they were imposed.
I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, just good old fashioned moral corruption from those with vested interests.
Tuna said:
<again, bit of an edit, apologies>
Unfortunately public health is about convincing enough of a population to do "the right thing" - and whilst I absolutely agree that many people can handle the truth, and we all deserve it, there isn't much evidence that you can maintain public control at the same time.
The interesting exception is China - there will surely be some interesting studies on how they appear to have controlled the virus. They have incredibly tight control over the information that their citizens receive, no significant opposition and a social sense of group responsibility that appears to make group decisions easier to enforce. The complete opposite of what we believe is "good" in the west, yet they (appear) to have done far better than us in controlling the virus.
Where does that leave our freedom, independence and "the truth"?
It's interesting that you address public control in one paragraph, and China in the next. Our government has acted on advice from SAGE SPI-B to try and control its own citizens, with limited success. China's approach is completely unacceptable to me given how benign the virus is for most people. I don't believe any numbers that China declares regarding its outcomes in any event.Unfortunately public health is about convincing enough of a population to do "the right thing" - and whilst I absolutely agree that many people can handle the truth, and we all deserve it, there isn't much evidence that you can maintain public control at the same time.
The interesting exception is China - there will surely be some interesting studies on how they appear to have controlled the virus. They have incredibly tight control over the information that their citizens receive, no significant opposition and a social sense of group responsibility that appears to make group decisions easier to enforce. The complete opposite of what we believe is "good" in the west, yet they (appear) to have done far better than us in controlling the virus.
Where does that leave our freedom, independence and "the truth"?
Freedom, independence and the truth, as you put it, are casualties of this virus as much as anything else. I believe our government have acted very badly indeed throughout - and are still doing (vaccine passports for example). However, China elevates bad behaviour by the state to a whole new level. One that is scary and unacceptable.
Nothing has been allowed to succeed if it would risk the EUA for the vaccines.RE the question of why the potential use of some of the other drugs like Ivermectin have been suppressed..
The contract that Pfizer has with individual countries was leaked on twitter the other day.
This clause indicates that even if an alternative drug is found the contract with Pfizer cannot be voided.
|https://thumbsnap.com/32wzkNEK[/url]
Another slightly unsettling clause here,
|https://thumbsnap.com/qD69tbcz[/url]
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/141965300281899...
The contract that Pfizer has with individual countries was leaked on twitter the other day.
This clause indicates that even if an alternative drug is found the contract with Pfizer cannot be voided.
|https://thumbsnap.com/32wzkNEK[/url]Another slightly unsettling clause here,
|https://thumbsnap.com/qD69tbcz[/url]https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/141965300281899...
Boringvolvodriver said:
Tuna - I would prefer it if governments were Frank and truthful with what they told us rather than treat us like they have done.
I accept that the situation was constantly changing although it wouldn’t hurt to treat us like adults and maybe , just maybe, when they have got it wrong, apologize rather than try to cover it up with lies.
They initially started well in my eyes. I accept that the situation was constantly changing although it wouldn’t hurt to treat us like adults and maybe , just maybe, when they have got it wrong, apologize rather than try to cover it up with lies.
They stated it was a virus that mainly affects the elderly. That we have an aged and unhealthy general population. We will have people die from this virus and we need to prepare ourselves for this.
I appreciated the frankness.
It was then 3 weeks to flatten the curve, and the rest has been a blur of inexplicable rules and restrictions ever since. All I can gather from the confusion and mixed messages is that 'the science' doesn't really have a clue what's going on. The 'puzzlement' at the drop in cases as an example.
The vaccine passports coming in after 'freedom day' and having one of the most successful vaccine rollouts in history, just sums up what a complete and utter clusterf
k the whole situation has been. GMT13 said:
RE the question of why the potential use of some of the other drugs like Ivermectin have been suppressed.
Heads up, ivermectin fanbois. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/1...
TL;DR: studies produce naff all evidence that it does anything.
TypeRTim said:
You mean like crank out a vaccine for a 'novel coronavirus' which has never been seen before in humans, using delivery technology that has never been implemented in mass vaccination regimes in humans, less than 18 months after the initial outbreak? That kind of 'crank out a fix'
False information I'm afraid.We have seen a number of coronaviruses before - that's why this one has a number after it
So when they say "novel", they don't mean they've never worked on coronaviruses, or that they don't have work in the lab relating to coronaviruses.
They did two things differently. Firstly, they pushed forward with a fairly new (and still relatively untested) way to synthesise a vaccine. That wasn't "new science", just existing research applied to a new variant of coronavirus.
Secondly, they pushed through the approvals process at a rate that has never been seen before. These were unique circumstances, so they shortened a process that would normally take years to a few months.
But in both cases, they weren't doing anything new. There wasn't some new invention required, and they were (luckily) quite well prepared with the necessary infrastructure and research. We develop vaccines like this fairly regularly, so it's not so surprising they did so for covid - though the speed is quite astonishing compared to normal research.
And you'll note the vaccines aren't a "fix" - it's encouraging an existing immune system response, and is only 60-70% effective at preventing infection.
That's a world away from repairing lung damage (or even preventing it in the first place) on demand.
Uggers said:
Boringvolvodriver said:
Tuna - I would prefer it if governments were Frank and truthful with what they told us rather than treat us like they have done.
I accept that the situation was constantly changing although it wouldn’t hurt to treat us like adults and maybe , just maybe, when they have got it wrong, apologize rather than try to cover it up with lies.
They initially started well in my eyes. I accept that the situation was constantly changing although it wouldn’t hurt to treat us like adults and maybe , just maybe, when they have got it wrong, apologize rather than try to cover it up with lies.
They stated it was a virus that mainly affects the elderly. That we have an aged and unhealthy general population. We will have people die from this virus and we need to prepare ourselves for this.
I appreciated the frankness.
It was then 3 weeks to flatten the curve, and the rest has been a blur of inexplicable rules and restrictions ever since. All I can gather from the confusion and mixed messages is that 'the science' doesn't really have a clue what's going on. The 'puzzlement' at the drop in cases as an example.
The vaccine passports coming in after 'freedom day' and having one of the most successful vaccine rollouts in history, just sums up what a complete and utter clusterf
k the whole situation has been. And of course all those people who previously said they didn’t trust politicians and suddenly start hanging off every word they utter………..
I had a strong suspicion of what Johnson would be like as PM, which is why I didn’t vote Conservative in the GE or subsequent locals. Didn’t vote Labour either and last time spoiled my paper.
because why?Brave Fart said:
Freedom, independence and the truth, as you put it, are casualties of this virus as much as anything else. I believe our government have acted very badly indeed throughout - and are still doing (vaccine passports for example). However, China elevates bad behaviour by the state to a whole new level. One that is scary and unacceptable.
Playing devil's advocate here, but China appears to have had a much better 18 months than we have, even allowing for wild misreporting of infection numbers.Tuna said:
Playing devil's advocate here, but China appears to have had a much better 18 months than we have, even allowing for wild misreporting of infection numbers.
Unless you're prepared to tolerate a society and attitude to honesty/open information like China's, there's limited value in comparing against them.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff