New ‘mu’ COVID-19 variant now found in 49 US states

Discussion in 'Coronavirus (COVID-19) News' started by Bearack, Sep 8, 2021.

  1. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    16,420
    Likes Received:
    7,516
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well certainly some talking head on TV will come along to tell you what it means and how you should interpret it.

    I'm lucky: I am capable of independent thought.

    The explanation is quite simple--the shots do not prevent the infection. And it gets even worse, but we'll save that for later. :angel:
     
  2. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    25,132
    Likes Received:
    9,360
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes the government has based its activities on past pandemics. We have a virus that came from a Chinese laboratory known for conducting gain of function work for the Chinese military. The virus has been described by virologists as appearing to be engineered. You can draw whatever conclusion you want from that but it screams weaponized virus to me and doesn't fit experience from past pandemics. One thing that is obvious and a clear fact is that what we are doing to escape the virus is ineffective. Continuing on the same way makes no sense to me at all.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  3. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    25,132
    Likes Received:
    9,360
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are a few problems. Firstly, I don't read anything about politics on the internet outside of this forum. I get it from television. There is nothing to cite other than what I stated. Secondly, I view information taken from the internet as dubious at best and loaded with political agenda at worst so I don't participate in citing websites, particularly since I don't know what is on them. Thirdly, there is an obvious divide about the "science" between government and the practicing medical community. I ignore what government says and pay attention to what doctors who actually practice medicine say. I have no idea where to look to find this information on the internet but I assume you can find it if it is there. My view of the truth is based on common sense, experience and what private sector medical professionals say. I stand by my view. Feel free to ignore it.
     
  4. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    41,916
    Likes Received:
    11,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No.

    The Public Health Scotland report that your article sites includes the following statement right underneath the chart that your article CLAIMS to be based on:
    Your screed ignored that statement and WILDLY misinterpreted the chart.

    This is a crystal clear demonstration of why it is important to actually refer to science rather than social medial that for reasons of purpose or ineptitude fail in reading either the chart or the words.
     
    MJ Davies, dairyair and Derideo_Te like this.
  5. nopartisanbull

    nopartisanbull Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2018
    Messages:
    5,129
    Likes Received:
    2,405
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Quote; Everything we have done to control the virus has proven to be ineffective.

    Do you believe that “Natural Herd Immunity” has been the right solution since the beginning of the pandemic?

    I
     
  6. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    41,916
    Likes Received:
    11,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are going to be consistently and seriously uninformed if all you do is watch TV - regardless of what channel you choose.

    There is no way that TV news can present an accurate view of complex information in the tiny time increment allowed. Or, you are listening to talking heads who have an agenda - in which case there is just plain ZERO hope. You end up hearing about Niki Minaj and her cousin's friend's distended balls due to vaccination, and Tucker Carlson repeatedly projecting that kind of garbage.

    Doctors are not ignored, but what they are saying is not science. Almost never do they have the time, the patient count, equipment or procedures for conducting a study that is meaningful or that uses scientific process.

    Thus stories of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin do end up being tested.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  7. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    61,235
    Likes Received:
    12,785
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One is free to believe all the conspiracy theories they want.
    But the virus will still play out as every other virus has done. Eventually humans beat back the virus.
     
  8. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    61,235
    Likes Received:
    12,785
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All those tv watchers get the equivalent accurate information as the old National Enquirer used to provide.

    It seems a great many on these forums only get the dis and misinformation off of talking head tv.
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  9. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    128,889
    Likes Received:
    28,820
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Do you guys follow the science?


    upload_2021-9-16_20-8-16.png
    Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19

    Conclusions:

    Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.....

    ...In summary, based on the totality of the trials and epidemiologic evidence presented in this review along with the preliminary findings of the Unitaid/WHO meta-analysis of treatment RCTs and the guideline recommendation from the international BIRD conference, ivermectin should be globally and systematically deployed in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2021
  10. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    41,916
    Likes Received:
    11,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is a meta review, retrospective, that included "studies" as small as 24 individuals and no more than ~500 selected from various sources around the world.

    It is NOT something that the public health organizations of any first world country would use to approve this medicine.

    It's the kind of data that would be used as a justification for doing a serious tests of ivermectin. And, such tests are being carried out.

    I commented on that in the thread "Why is the media still lying about Ivermectin?"

    If someone wants to claim there is a lie being told, they need to document that lie.
     
  11. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    128,889
    Likes Received:
    28,820
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    "Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance....

    ...In summary, based on the totality of the trials and epidemiologic evidence presented in this review along with the preliminary findings of the Unitaid/WHO meta-analysis of treatment RCTs and the guideline recommendation from the international BIRD conference, ivermectin should be globally and systematically deployed in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

    I take the words of the experts over your political forum opinion.
     
  12. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    41,916
    Likes Received:
    11,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As I pointed out, this meta analysis included tests as small as 24 individuals.

    And, this did NOT include "epidemiological evidence". It was a meta review.

    And, meta analyses are NOT what science based medicine uses for approving usage of ANYTHING.

    Please do not suggest that such a meta analysis could EVER be the basis for NIH or any other reputable organization to approve a medication as being effective.

    Will ivermectin ever be shown to be effective in an actual scientific test? I don't know. But, I know of NOTHING suggesting it is the case today.
     
  13. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    128,889
    Likes Received:
    28,820
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As I pointed out from the National Institute of Health

    "Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance....

    ...In summary, based on the totality of the trials and epidemiologic evidence presented in this review along with the preliminary findings of the Unitaid/WHO meta-analysis of treatment RCTs and the guideline recommendation from the international BIRD conference, ivermectin should be globally and systematically deployed in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/
     
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    41,916
    Likes Received:
    11,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I stand by what I said.

    This is a meta analysis, NOT a test designed to justify certifying ivermectin for use against COVID.

    Note that this meta analysis makes a policy argument - which is not what scientific studies of medicine or medical equipment do.

    Yes, it is an NIH study and has some weight in that it is a study that justifies testing ivermectin.

    Remember that we didn't accept the Pfizer vaccine on the kind of meta analysis shown in this study.

    Multiple phases of serious testing were done before there was an emergency use authorization.
     

Share This Page