triplehorn

Regarding medical professionals response, what percentage of all physicians do you think are actually treating covid patients? And of those docs that are, what percentage are treating covid patients in the outpatient setting as opposed to those sick enough to be admitted? It's a trick question - throughout this ordeal there has been no early outpatient treatment recommendations for active infection in the US. You take the small percentage of docs treating outpatient covid with the lack of coordinated early outpatient treatment plan and it's partly why no one is acting and we are failing our people. It's just one part of the failure that has been our federal non-response. The US has not done the research to answer the important questions. Full stop. That funding decision got baked into the plans before March. Research funding for repurposed therapeutics to reduce covid morbidity and death was an afterthought. Fed entities were all in for vaccines from the jump. That plan set a course for disaster when an orange primate decided to toss reason and common sense into the air resulting in an emergent need for safe, cheap, effective therapeutics. I'm particularly upset this week because I learned of a family relation with covid, in his mid-40's wife and kids, who just spent a month in the hospital in Amarillo and is now at home on oxygen and just barely starting to walk short distances. In the last 10 days, I've had multiple outpatients and their members get covid. One middle age man with multiple medical problems called me last Sunday and informed me he caught covid from his covid positive co-worker he carpools with to work. He sounded like death, feared he was going to die and asked me if there was anything I could do to help. This guy had been taking VitD3, C, and zinc since March as I'd told all my outpatients to do since this started. I talked about the options and he chose a 5 day course of HCQ and zithromax. I called it in to the pharmacy, talked with the pharmacist to make clear the reason for the prescription, and got unquestioned cooperation. I followed up with him yesterday and he's still sick but sounded a lot better. Mind you, I'm not a primary care doc, but right now it's blowing up in my community and in my own practice and I'm going to try to help everyone I can. Even if we never know if it helped, there's no harm in trying. It's safe. You risk losing way more by doing nothing.

None of that supports your bullshit that observational studies are not valid or provide evidence of efficacy regularly used to guide treatment, or addresses the real strengths and weaknesses of RCT's under various conditions. Whether it's studies of infectious disease or heart or liver disease doesn't matter. It's the underlying statistical math principles that are clearly explained. Your attack on observational studies in this context with the observed size of treatment effects is reckless and wrong. get your shit together or shut the fuck up about it. And the Yale peers aren't talking about observational studies vs RCT's. The unfortunate letter from other Yale peers was penned Aug 4th. A lot more has happened in the world since then. HCQ got thrust outside the medical/scientific arena into politics and mass marketing, so Yale peers stating his views don't reflect the views of Yale Med et al is appropriate. Dr. McCullough makes the disclaimer that his views aren't representative of Baylor Hospital proper, no letter written. But the Yale peer letter also parses and gives a now familiar incomplete account: "In fact, rigorously-conducted clinical trials have found that HCQ is not effective as an early prophylactic therapy in preventing illness due to COVID-19 in people exposed to the virus. Furthermore, HCQ, alone or together with the antibiotic, azithromycin, has not been shown to be effective in improving the clinical status of patients with COVID-19." For early outpatient treatment, they refer to one study only (Boulware USA) -for prophylaxis against the presence of virus after an exposure, not to prevent hospitalization and death in infected cases treated early. The significance of that distinction is huge, and completely lost in in the Yale letter. That level of misrepresentation and misunderstanding is a giant fucking problem if used to claim early outpatient treatment is ineffective. HCQ alone or together at that time "has not been shown to be effective in improving clinical status of patients"? Not progressing to hospitalization and death, truly, is not "improving clinical status". It's a true statement in a context of study terms. But it's also a shitty attempt at parsing they're engaging in. A near 50% reduction in need for hospitalization and resultant death does not mean improving clinical status by comparison in parallel with control, it means (in study terms) that you don't get worse. In this case treatment and control have similar clinical pictures for a period, then control crashes and dies, but the treatment group shows no evidence of improving clinical status despite being alive and still able to breathe. Do you need more explanation, knucklehead? We've got multiple effective options for early outpatient treatment - ivermectin is shaping up to be a silver bullet- but at the end of the day the US bodies at the federal level failed to do the studies needed to map it out. period. People got blinded or brainwashed while others were gaming to profit by ignoring the reality of these options in favor of vastly more expensive novel therapeutics.

To understand the context, usefulness, and applicability of RCT's vs Observational studies, listen to an expert, Yale's Dr. Harvey Risch. Listen to his elaboration starting at 26:20 to understand how full of shit Anna has been all year:

In the hearing Dr. Risch directly addressed the rank confusion and misinformation about observational studies and RCT's, ignorance and misunderstanding you're contributing to every time you spout your bullshit about studies.

Live now. should be interesting:

They are distinctly different, but both have summer and snow.

couple other snow pics today

In Hood Natl Forest facing SE aspect of Mt Hood. The ski runs across the way are part of Mt. Hood Meadows ski resort.

Mid-Nov 3ft storm and no lifts open today? no problem! Hit the logging roads to get to clear cuts. Or in the case of these folks, hit it with your grandpappy's snowcat for a tow. Skied with my line-spotter today

over 3ft mountain snow the last 72 hrs, so we took a schuss down a clear cut today looking across at the base of MtHood

Trial supports use of fluvoxamine in patients with mild COVID-19 Key passage from this article: The bolded is right up there with our biggest failures in the US managing this pandemic. Who's to blame? Fauci? Trump? Pharma isn't going to pay for and conduct generic repurposing studies. Outside of vaccines, for which Fauci et al went all-in from the very beginning, federal funding for repurposed therapeutics in the US is virtually non-existent. Fauci's fault? I don't know. But the rest of the world has left us behind in researching repurposed generics and utilizing them on a population scale. The evidence is overwhelming that we have multiple safe and effective options when targeted correctly yet it's radio silence from on high in the US. Why? Despite the drug that will not be named having over 170 positive studies worldwide (10 positive studies the first 2 weeks of this November alone) , ivermectin is emerging as arguably the strongest effective available agent for early use. Ivermectin RCT reported this week showing it outperforms tdtwbn: Two arms also tested ivermectin prophylaxis with impressive results: dirt cheap, safe, and once per week or even once per month dosing. Apart from POTUS and VIPs getting good care with repurposed generics, for the rest of the population it's zilch. Wait for a vaccine, and watch a lot more death than there has to be. Why?

I get it. it's a dead horse on this forum. In the outside world, it's most certainly not. sucks it's been politicized and ignored when shit is so severely blowing up again.

You know, is there even a single study in the US that has looked at taking this prophylactically for that use to be called ineffective? I'm not aware of one. But on that note, Indian study out this week: Long term hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis has reduced infection by 90% in this retrospective study of Indian healthcare workers (n=604). 800 mg on day 1 and 400 mg weekly thereafter. (don't shoot the messenger). Similar results are being observed for proph use of ivermectin which the US isn't really looking at either as far as I can tell. However, being a vampire is probably Rudy's best protection.

Flynn talked with foreign officials who were under surveillance at the time. Then he lied to the FBI when interviewed about the communications.

would love it if what she discusses reveals to Mitch he's about to be caught in a web without her drawing specific attention to it.

A historic volume of justice needs to be meted out. Pruning is insufficient, have to get the roots out.

Reported by NYT tonight: the Justice Department official who oversees investigations of voter fraud, Richard Pilger, resigned from the post within hours today after Barr announced his inquiry citing it “abrogates a forty year old non-interference policy.” anything to maintain power for these cons. Hard not to see things escalating, as has been anticipated.

the thought of a strategy of letting this get strung out as an open question is chilling. VVV

It's not the worst thing in the world that the Trumps are ginning up suspicion and discord over election systems. Maybe this will promote a push to a less glitchy, corruptible, manipulable system across the land. That would be a welcome parting gift.

worthy placeholder this fine evening

appropriately aged and no, it hasn’t happened yet

They're the only Four Seasons told they'd be paid and believed it.

Ironically, it wasn't the electronic voting that beat Trump, it was the paper ballot. I can't help but at least consider this accusation as yet another confession. But by all means, take a very close look and please expose anything that reveals that voting machine code/function on any scale was altered willfully or by accident. Couldn't be happier to see all future voting occur by verifiable paper ballot with a sufficient window of time to cast it to ensure no one is excluded due to their lack of access to polling places with a sufficient number of working voting machines.

nice company, Ted.