Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just now, Ogre said:

Dude.

Would you agree that taking the words out of someone’s mouth (by deleting a perfectly fine post that you just don’t happen to agree with) is just a detrimental to the having of a meaningful conversation?

Asking for a friend.

It's ok as long as it's not a right-wing point of view that we're eliminating.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/1/2020 at 6:48 PM, Curt said:

I’ll just say this.  When it is relatively easy to do something (find good produce, afford healthier food, have ample time to cook good meals at home) more people will do.  If any/all of those things become more difficult, it’s not they it becomes impossible, but fewer people will be willing to devote the resources doing them.

Everything is a choice, sure, but when something is easier, it’s a lot more likely to actually get chosen.  The more barriers put in someone’s way, the less likely they are to overcome them.

We, as a society, should support initiatives that make it easier for people to make healthy choices, as opposed to expecting people to put in extreme effort and make difficult choices in order to be healthy.

It is a main reason you see voting policies in certain places the way they are. But the more important thing right now is that vaccines when they become available need to be free or almost no cost and there needs to be vaccines in poor urban areas with the corresponding health promotion campaign to make sure ppl get it. 

Edited by LGR4GM
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, nfreeman said:

BTW, most of the people who need to take this advice don't live in inner cities and don't live in food deserts either.

And I’ll be completely honest. 
 

This really pisses me off!

How often are you telling people they need to link with facts when they make random claims!

I’m not necessarily saying you’re wrong (although every cell in my body is telling me you are), the CDC is telling you your wrong. 

https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2019/18_0579.htm

 

And out of all those groups listed here as the highest rates of obesity ( and health issue arising from it), how many predominantly live in the inner city?

We wonder why there are racial disparities?! 
 

JFC!

BTW, there is no universe in existence where a whopper is a healthy food item. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Taro T said:

For anybody curious about HCQ and whether it is effective or not, there is a website that purports to have links to all the studies researching it.  The website summarizes the study data/results, states whether the study was peer reviewed or not, and provides links to the actual studies.

https://c19study.com

 

Let me summarize, there is almost 0 statistically significant benefits from Hydroxicloroquinine. There might be some slight benefit from using a zpack but the results are inconclusive and the methodology for most of those studies don't isolate the treatment good enough. To be very clear, HCQ is not a cure, period. 

Basically we don't have enough info yet on HCQ and how it interacts with Covid. There is evidence that anti-virals may have some type of positive impact. Science though takes time and so we have to wait before touting things as cures or telling ppl they have taking something random and are immune now or whatever shenanigans I have seen. 

Edited by LGR4GM
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eleven said:

Why did you mention the chicken Caesar salads?  Why did you mention the sides?  No one else had done so.

Again:  I mentioned the sides and drinks at BK in response to someone else's post about 2 whoppers for $5.  Not sure what the problem is here.

 

37 minutes ago, Ogre said:

Dude.

Would you agree that taking the words out of someone’s mouth (by deleting a perfectly fine post that you just don’t happen to agree with) is just a detrimental to the having of a meaningful conversation?

Asking for a friend.

Would you say that complaining for months about a deleted post that I offered to restore is pointless?

 

29 minutes ago, Ogre said:

And I’ll be completely honest. 
 

This really pisses me off!

How often are you telling people they need to link with facts when they make random claims!

I’m not necessarily saying you’re wrong (although every cell in my body is telling me you are), the CDC is telling you your wrong. 

https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2019/18_0579.htm

 

And out of all those groups listed here as the highest rates of obesity ( and health issue arising from it), how many predominantly live in the inner city?

We wonder why there are racial disparities?! 
 

JFC!

BTW, there is no universe in existence where a whopper is a healthy food item. 

The link you posted in no way refutes my assertion.  It's just more PO'd free association of the type that surfaces easily among people who are so inclined who want to turn every discussion into a political argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Taro T said:

For anybody curious about HCQ and whether it is effective or not, there is a website that purports to have links to all the studies researching it.  The website summarizes the study data/results, states whether the study was peer reviewed or not, and provides links to the actual studies.

https://c19study.com

 

Interesting post, not because of the data presented---this website is fundamentally flawed---but because we can see how misinformation spreads during the pandemic.

This website is at best scientifically flawed, at worst straight propaganda. The site cherry-picks certain HCQ Covid studies while leaving others out. For a more comprehensive review of studies done look here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=hydroxychloroquine+covid+meta+analysis&hl=en&scisbd=1&as_sdt=0,5

The site also misrepresents the studies they do show. For example, the Bouware study is listed as a 'Positive' result here when the literal conclusion of the study is: "After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days after exposure.It also doesnt chart."

The focus of the site seems to be on the number of studies, and not the number of cases studied within those studies, which is much more important.

Worst of all, Brazil is not at all included at all in this analysis. Brazil has one of the highest COVID-19 case counts in the world and patients there have been given/taken HCQ with disastrous results. If only we could discuss the social context that led to this...

Looking at how this website has been distributed on Reddit and Twitter, it only flourishes in conspiracy theory based communities. Online communities with active scientists and doctors immediately point out the flaws of this analysis (of which I've only listed a few).

The HCQ debate is fascinating. A question to the people still hanging onto the idea of HCQ as miracle cure:  In the past have you supported and promoted taking unprescribed, untested medication with severe side effects? If a random person on the street without any medical training was yelling about taking unproven, physically-difficult medication not recommended by the scientific community, would you take it? Would you argue for that medication online for months at a time, even after its been shown not to have positive side-effects and possibly negative effects? If not, what is different in this case?

Also, has anyone still talking about HCQ as a cure ever taken this medication? I live and work in the tropics and we almost always take our chances with the possibility of catching malaria instead of taking preventative anti-malarial drugs, due to the severe side effects.

 

  • Awesome! (+1) 2
  • Thanks (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, atoq said:

Interesting post, not because of the data presented---this website is fundamentally flawed---but because we can see how misinformation spreads during the pandemic.

This website is at best scientifically flawed, at worst straight propaganda. The site cherry-picks certain HCQ Covid studies while leaving others out. For a more comprehensive review of studies done look here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=hydroxychloroquine+covid+meta+analysis&hl=en&scisbd=1&as_sdt=0,5

The site also misrepresents the studies they do show. For example, the Bouware study is listed as a 'Positive' result here when the literal conclusion of the study is: "After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days after exposure.It also doesnt chart."

The focus of the site seems to be on the number of studies, and not the number of cases studied within those studies, which is much more important.

Worst of all, Brazil is not at all included at all in this analysis. Brazil has one of the highest COVID-19 case counts in the world and patients there have been given/taken HCQ with disastrous results. If only we could discuss the social context that led to this...

Looking at how this website has been distributed on Reddit and Twitter, it only flourishes in conspiracy theory based communities. Online communities with active scientists and doctors immediately point out the flaws of this analysis (of which I've only listed a few).

The HCQ debate is fascinating. A question to the people still hanging onto the idea of HCQ as miracle cure:  In the past have you supported and promoted taking unprescribed, untested medication with severe side effects? If a random person on the street without any medical training was yelling about taking unproven, physically-difficult medication not recommended by the scientific community, would you take it? Would you argue for that medication online for months at a time, even after its been shown not to have positive side-effects and possibly negative effects? If not, what is different in this case?

Also, has anyone still talking about HCQ as a cure ever taken this medication? I live and work in the tropics and we almost always take our chances with the possibility of catching malaria instead of taking preventative anti-malarial drugs, due to the severe side effects.

 

Bingo. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Eleven said:

HCQ is being pushed by one game show host / politician and so this belongs in the politics thread, right?

Um, there was no editorializing about the website & it provides links to many studies directly (including studies that lean positive, negative, & inconclusive) and includes whether they were peer reviewed or not.  Seems that having direct access to studies that often can be locked behind paywalls would be a good thing.

If you don't want to check out the studies, that absolutely is your prerogative.  But sending the OP into a politics thread that will have limited views seems to be counterproductive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, atoq said:

Interesting post, not because of the data presented---this website is fundamentally flawed---but because we can see how misinformation spreads during the pandemic.

This website is at best scientifically flawed, at worst straight propaganda. The site cherry-picks certain HCQ Covid studies while leaving others out. For a more comprehensive review of studies done look here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=hydroxychloroquine+covid+meta+analysis&hl=en&scisbd=1&as_sdt=0,5

The site also misrepresents the studies they do show. For example, the Bouware study is listed as a 'Positive' result here when the literal conclusion of the study is: "After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days after exposure.It also doesnt chart."

The focus of the site seems to be on the number of studies, and not the number of cases studied within those studies, which is much more important.

Worst of all, Brazil is not at all included at all in this analysis. Brazil has one of the highest COVID-19 case counts in the world and patients there have been given/taken HCQ with disastrous results. If only we could discuss the social context that led to this...

Looking at how this website has been distributed on Reddit and Twitter, it only flourishes in conspiracy theory based communities. Online communities with active scientists and doctors immediately point out the flaws of this analysis (of which I've only listed a few).

The HCQ debate is fascinating. A question to the people still hanging onto the idea of HCQ as miracle cure:  In the past have you supported and promoted taking unprescribed, untested medication with severe side effects? If a random person on the street without any medical training was yelling about taking unproven, physically-difficult medication not recommended by the scientific community, would you take it? Would you argue for that medication online for months at a time, even after its been shown not to have positive side-effects and possibly negative effects? If not, what is different in this case?

Also, has anyone still talking about HCQ as a cure ever taken this medication? I live and work in the tropics and we almost always take our chances with the possibility of catching malaria instead of taking preventative anti-malarial drugs, due to the severe side effects.

 

Thank you for the link to additional studies; it has been bookmarked.  Also, thank you for the head's up on Brazil, did not realize they have been advocating HCQ usage.

Interesting that you called out the Bouware study as that seems to be the 1 study where the website disagrees with the study authors (who are planning additional studies per their article) and the website explicitly points out that their conclusion differs from that of the authors.  They provide in great detail why they disagree with the authors' conclusions (short version, HCQ did have positive results compared to placebo but not at statistically significant levels and website believes that modifications to the study mid-study effected the p-value).  Having both the study & authors' conclusions and the conflicting interpretation is very helpful and the way science used to work.  (Somebody has a theory, designs an experiment to test it, publishes the results & their interpretations, & the world then tries to find the flaws, & then either we run with them being on the right track or they go back & fix the flaws.  And they refine their theory in either case.  And either way, others use this as a basis for their own theories, and the process expands & our collective intelligence improves.)

And, pretty sure that because I posted the original link that you're placing me in the group that considers HCQ a "miracle cure."  I don't.  But I do expect that when combined with zinc (which very few studies include) that for many people it can reduce the severity of symptoms if taken early enough.  Considering how long it takes for symptoms to express, not sure how effective it can be practically.

And no, without a discussion with my PCP would not take HCQ w/ or w/out azythromycin &/or zinc.  But would be open to it if I knew I'd been in contact with somebody that was at a point in the disease progression that they were contagious.  

Really don't believe that the vast majority of people that are interested in HQC in tandem match the stereotype you are presenting.  And, as there are studies both negative and positive, there are many members of "the scientific community" that do recommend it.

And, what I would really like to see is a major study of HQC that actually has it administered early and with appropriate levels of zinc included.  My expectation is that we'd see benefits under those conditions.  And if we don't, then good we'll have actually seen it given a fair shake and not prove to be beneficial.  (If there was one & I missed it, please provide the link if you have it.  Obviously haven't had a chance to check out all 100+ links provided in our 2 searches.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ... said:

That depends on who you ask.

Again, there was nothing political in the OP, merely a direct link to a website that has aggregated studies of HCQ and provides direct access to the studies.  And it includes studies that run the gamut of having positive results, negative results, and inconclusive results.

It also spurred @atoq to provide a direct link to even more studies which also run the gamut of results.

Apologies for you having access to more information.  Old enough to remember when that wasn't a bad thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Taro T said:

Thank you for the link to additional studies; it has been bookmarked.  Also, thank you for the head's up on Brazil, did not realize they have been advocating HCQ usage.

Interesting that you called out the Bouware study as that seems to be the 1 study where the website disagrees with the study authors (who are planning additional studies per their article) and the website explicitly points out that their conclusion differs from that of the authors.  They provide in great detail why they disagree with the authors' conclusions (short version, HCQ did have positive results compared to placebo but not at statistically significant levels and website believes that modifications to the study mid-study effected the p-value).  Having both the study & authors' conclusions and the conflicting interpretation is very helpful and the way science used to work.  (Somebody has a theory, designs an experiment to test it, publishes the results & their interpretations, & the world then tries to find the flaws, & then either we run with them being on the right track or they go back & fix the flaws.  And they refine their theory in either case.  And either way, others use this as a basis for their own theories, and the process expands & our collective intelligence improves.)

And, pretty sure that because I posted the original link that you're placing me in the group that considers HCQ a "miracle cure."  I don't.  But I do expect that when combined with zinc (which very few studies include) that for many people it can reduce the severity of symptoms if taken early enough.  Considering how long it takes for symptoms to express, not sure how effective it can be practically.

And no, without a discussion with my PCP would not take HCQ w/ or w/out azythromycin &/or zinc.  But would be open to it if I knew I'd been in contact with somebody that was at a point in the disease progression that they were contagious.  

Really don't believe that the vast majority of people that are interested in HQC in tandem match the stereotype you are presenting.  And, as there are studies both negative and positive, there are many members of "the scientific community" that do recommend it.

And, what I would really like to see is a major study of HQC that actually has it administered early and with appropriate levels of zinc included.  My expectation is that we'd see benefits under those conditions.  And if we don't, then good we'll have actually seen it given a fair shake and not prove to be beneficial.  (If there was one & I missed it, please provide the link if you have it.  Obviously haven't had a chance to check out all 100+ links provided in our 2 searches.)

 

That is debatable. You would need a massive study to account for all the commodities and underlying diseases. Probably somewhere around 2-4k ppl roughly if not more to actually have some statistically useful information. 

And this is why I think that website you found is bias. You don't lable studies this way. The one study I looked at had a whopping 100 ppl in the Covid positive pool. They don't have a positive outcome because only 6% who took a full course of HQC didn't get symptomatic sickness. They basically have more questions and to the studies credit thy acknowledge that further along in the paper. 

The final problem I think you have already addressed. I could go several weeks without symptoms and then crash and crash hard, would that matter in this instance? What about other anti-virals with less side effects? Would they work as well or better in the same experiment? The issue we are careening towards is what if HQC and Zinc combined provided some level of protection if administered early enough (I think it is safe to say this wouldn't work for everyone), would ppl then start to take HQC and Zinc as a preventitive measure? How does that impact other body functions because HQC has major side effects. What about dosage? How much do we need? Is a 7 week course to little, to much? 

I am asking these questions because we don't have answers. For some fringe doctors to spout off crazy nonsense that HQC is a cure is reckless and dangerous. 

4 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Again, there was nothing political in the OP, merely a direct link to a website that has aggregated studies of HCQ and provides direct access to the studies.  And it includes studies that run the gamut of having positive results, negative results, and inconclusive results.

It also spurred @atoq to provide a direct link to even more studies which also run the gamut of results.

Apologies for you having access to more information.  Old enough to remember when that wasn't a bad thing.

Again looking at now 2 of the studies they tagged as "positive" left me very hesitant. It is a simplification and I don't like, not for something as complex as this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Again, there was nothing political in the OP, merely a direct link to a website that has aggregated studies of HCQ and provides direct access to the studies.  And it includes studies that run the gamut of having positive results, negative results, and inconclusive results.

It also spurred @atoq to provide a direct link to even more studies which also run the gamut of results.

Apologies for you having access to more information.  Old enough to remember when that wasn't a bad thing.

And I am young enough to understand how easy it to publish things on the internet so here we are. 

Information is good but not all information is good. I think a big issue (not with your site, just in general) is the authority who creates or disseminates that information. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

 

That is debatable. You would need a massive study to account for all the commodities and underlying diseases. Probably somewhere around 2-4k ppl roughly if not more to actually have some statistically useful information. 

And this is why I think that website you found is bias. You don't lable studies this way. The one study I looked at had a whopping 100 ppl in the Covid positive pool. They don't have a positive outcome because only 6% who took a full course of HQC didn't get symptomatic sickness. They basically have more questions and to the studies credit thy acknowledge that further along in the paper. 

The final problem I think you have already addressed. I could go several weeks without symptoms and then crash and crash hard, would that matter in this instance? What about other anti-virals with less side effects? Would they work as well or better in the same experiment? The issue we are careening towards is what if HQC and Zinc combined provided some level of protection if administered early enough (I think it is safe to say this wouldn't work for everyone), would ppl then start to take HQC and Zinc as a preventitive measure? How does that impact other body functions because HQC has major side effects. What about dosage? How much do we need? Is a 7 week course to little, to much? 

I am asking these questions because we don't have answers. For some fringe doctors to spout off crazy nonsense that HQC is a cure is reckless and dangerous.

Again looking at now 2 of the studies they tagged as "positive" left me very hesitant. It is a simplification and I don't like, not for something as complex as this. 

To the bolded, the crazy fringe doctors aren't limited to 1 side of the HCQ issue, see the retracted Lancet article that halted numerous other studies.

As to your final point, it probably is poor form to be saying whether the website authors consider the articles to be positive, neutral, or other.  But the fact remains, you can read the articles yourself and come to your own conclusions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Taro T said:

To the bolded, the crazy fringe doctors aren't limited to 1 side of the HCQ issue, see the retracted Lancet article that halted numerous other studies.

As to your final point, it probably is poor form to be saying whether the website authors consider the articles to be positive, neutral, or other.  But the fact remains, you can read the articles yourself and come to your own conclusions.

Well when a flawed study that most ppl didn't read is compared to a viral video retweeted by the highest authorities and public ppl, I think they are different and one is more bothersome especially since it made the more outrageous claim. 

You are right, I can read them and come to my own conclusions. I have also taken bio-statistics so that makes it a little easier compared to most ppl who might stumble across a site like that. As illustrated in the food conversation of this thread, ppl take the path of least resistance so they will not bother to go further and read the studies but assume the website which is editorializing is correct. However, I think it is good you posted it and it does a good job of providing the studies for us to take a look at. 

Edited by LGR4GM
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

And I am young enough to understand how easy it to publish things on the internet so here we are. 

Information is good but not all information is good. I think a big issue (not with your site, just in general) is the authority who creates or disseminates that information. 

 

And again, don't bother with what the aggregator website rates the studies.  It (and atoq's info as well) gives you direct access to the studies themselves.  YOU can review the primary source material.  You don't have to rely on somebody else's interpretation of the source material.  

They give you the opportunity to come to your own conclusions and also ask what other info do we need to make a conclusion.   That is a still a good thing IMHO.  Apparently your mileage may differ.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Taro T said:

And again, don't bother with what the aggregator website rates the studies.  It (and atoq's info as well) gives you direct access to the studies themselves.  YOU can review the primary source material.  You don't have to rely on somebody else's interpretation of the source material.  

They give you the opportunity to come to your own conclusions and also ask what other info do we need to make a conclusion.   That is a still a good thing IMHO.  Apparently your mileage may differ.

I agree aggregating the studies is great. Very helpful as it is basically a form of lit review. 

@Taro T I hope you don't think I am upset or dislike the link to this. I think it is very useful info and something I wish more ppl would take the time to look over. I just believe we should be very cautious and think about some of the issues these studies don't address as well. 

Edited by LGR4GM
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Well when a flawed study that most ppl didn't read is compared to a viral video retweeted by the highest authorities and public ppl, I think they are different and one is more bothersome especially since it made the more outrageous claim. 

Not sure who you're having a conversation with, but it sure ain't yours truly.  I have been talking about research studies of the efficacy of HCQ.  The discussion is about published research papers.  If you want to have a discussion about internet videos, that is fine, but you'll have that one with somebody else.

And that "flawed study" (along with the other one that was retracted at the same time) was directly resultant in cancelling dozens of research studies and also the WHO to recommend against the use of HCQ.  You're right, MOST people didn't read it; but the DECISION MAKERS in the INDUSTRY did read it and took actions because of it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Taro T said:

And that "flawed study" (along with the other one that was retracted at the same time) was directly resultant in cancelling dozens of research studies and also the WHO to recommend against the use of HCQ.  You're right, MOST people didn't read it; but the DECISION MAKERS in the INDUSTRY did read it and took actions because of it.

But that happens often. Papers are found to be flawed and the science changes over time. There were a ton of vaccine safety studies in the early 2000's because of a since retracted article. What you are describing is the flaw in science these days. There is almost no funding for replication studies and instead we just assume the one study is right until something says otherwise. What we should be doing is repeating that study to make sure or to see if it was wrong.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Let me summarize, there is almost 0 statistically significant benefits from Hydroxicloroquinine. There might be some slight benefit from using a zpack but the results are inconclusive and the methodology for most of those studies don't isolate the treatment good enough. To be very clear, HCQ is not a cure, period. 

Basically we don't have enough info yet on HCQ and how it interacts with Covid. There is evidence that anti-virals may have some type of positive impact. Science though takes time and so we have to wait before touting things as cures or telling ppl they have taking something random and are immune now or whatever shenanigans I have seen. 

https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535?fbclid=IwAR3_tjjUrvzIt3WgI1vSamJbsafTdxP_3rG9QLbLEHYNpXlSOCcY_pBv9Ik

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, WildCard said:

Didn't Sweden just go with the herd immunity approach? 

Sweden hasn't gotten close to herd immunity levels. Antibody testing shows about 10% of the population got infected.

I'd still like to know how we get to herd immunity when the immune response doesn't seem to be a lasting one.

They're talking about a vaccine that will be similar to the flu shot. Effective in as little as half the people who get it with the idea those who get sick anyway won't get as sick as they would have.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, WildCard said:

Are we any closer to finding a way to effectively treat this? Do we even effectively treat the flu outside of rest and hydrate?

We vaccinate against the flu, but treatment?  Not that I'm aware of.  It's rest, hydrate, and take something to reduce fever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, WildCard said:

Are we any closer to finding a way to effectively treat this? Do we even effectively treat the flu outside of rest and hydrate?

 

3 minutes ago, Eleven said:

We vaccinate against the flu, but treatment?  Not that I'm aware of.  It's rest, hydrate, and take something to reduce fever.

Tamiflu

Edited by Lanny
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...