Corona thread. No politics please

Status
Not open for further replies.
lbhVaV1.jpg
 
bluemax_1 said:
Not sure if your doc has mentioned this before, but just a little FYI (since I'm sure we're all trying to do what we can to avoid clinics/hospitals like the plague Covid-19), if you're having a strong allergic reaction, taking an H2 blocker concurrently with the Benadryl, has a synergistic effect that increases the efficacy.

H2 blockers = famotidine (Pepcid), ranitidine (Zantac), Cimetidine (Tagamet).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19052407/

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/542221
Click to expand...

Till a tried, tested, effective and approved vaccine is developed, distributed and administered to the public at large, a concoction of effective therapeutic meds will probably be the only other alternative much like the HIV virus which to this date, does not have such vaccine. So far, Hydroxychloroquine on its own has not shown to be the elixir.
 
Casinostocks said:
Till a tried, tested, effective and approved vaccine is developed, distributed and administered to the public at large, a concoction of effective therapeutic meds will probably be the only other alternative much like the HIV virus which to this date, does not have such vaccine. So far, Hydroxychloroquine on its own has not shown to be the elixir.
Click to expand...
One possible reason why the Hydroxychloroquine results have been kind of all over the place, is due to insufficient supply, and a difference in administering it.

Anecdotally, the best results have been from administering it early (and in conjunction with Azithromycin and Zinc sulfate), before the patients go into a severe phase.

Hydroxychloroquine itself doesn't kill SARS-CoV-2. It simply inhibits it (and it acts as an ionophore that aids zinc in the inhibition of viral replication in cells). The idea is to inhibit the virus early, while the viral load is low, so the body's immune system can fight/eliminate it.

If the viral load is already too high, and the patient has already begun to decompensate, it's a much harder fight.

Because Hydroxychloroquine is still in short supply, some facilities are only administering it to the most severe patients, because they don't have enough to administer it to every positive patient being admitted (they don't want to potentially waste it on someone who might fight the bug off on their own, when there are other people who might die).

There are also some facilities that aren't including the zinc in the treatment regimen. As of now, we won't know how significant a factor the zinc may be, until the completion of the various trials.

Yes, there's the possibility of arrhythmia with the Hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin + Zinc Sulfate therapies, but the hospitals who've been administering it early, are seeing a significant increase in patients resolving more quickly, and a big drop in patients transitioning to severe/critical.

Think of it this way:
You can have the latest, greatest fire extinguisher in your kitchen. A grease fire starts, you blast it early. It could save your house. Wait until the whole kitchen/house is on fire, and it'll probably be too little, too late.

I'm not saying that Hydroxychloroquine is the be-all-end-all godsend, but there seems to be a disparity in the results, and it seems to be related to how/when the treatment is initiated/administered.

The other early result (not released yet), is that the Remdesivir trials have been very promising, even in saving/reversing severe/ critical patients. The problem with Remdesivir is that it's in even shorter supply than Hydroxychloroquine.
 
bluemax_1 said:
Just a heads up, folks:

Looks like at least 10 (and counting) US meat packing plants have shutdown (or are shutting down) due to Covid-19 outbreaks.

If you're running low on meat, you might want to make a resupply run soon.

This goes for our Canadian brethren too:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/meat-packing-covid-1.5533574
Click to expand...

Just secured a ¼ cow, grass-fed and finished.

It'll be split between me, my girlfriend and her parents. We ought to be set for awhile. :thumbsup:
 
It goes without saying to be very careful as to where you get your (mis)information from, let alone the kinda (mis)information which can literally lead to life or death consequences.

One great litmus test, at least for me, is to verify as to whether the information comes from a vetted and verifiable source and If so, there are two different steams of such information but crucially and critically, the original and the main source of that information OUGHT NOT be open to reader comments. FULL STOP. PERIOD!

If you see any kind of research paper whereby it allows readers to make comments, run as far away and as quickly away as possible, do not get contaminated by such info and if you do, please do not spread (as an example, the anti-vaxxer crowd is typically very vulnerable and susceptible to this simple BS detector test of mine) The only place where a scientific paper should be debated and critically commented upon, should be among the other expert scientists of that field in the right venue which is usually a symposium with the bonafides.
 
Casinostocks said:
It goes without saying to be very careful as to where you get your (mis)information from, let alone the kinda (mis)information which can literally lead to life or death consequences.

One great litmus test, at least for me, is to verify as to whether the information comes from a vetted and verifiable source and If so, there are two different steams of such information but crucially and critically, the original and the main source of that information OUGHT NOT be open to reader comments. FULL STOP. PERIOD!

If you see any kind of research paper whereby it allows readers to make comments, run as far away and as quickly away as possible, do not get contaminated by such info and if you do, please do not spread (as an example, the anti-vaxxer crowd is typically very vulnerable and susceptible to this simple BS detector test of mine) The only place where a scientific paper should be debated and critically commented upon, should be among the other expert scientists of that field in the right venue which is usually a symposium with the bonafides.
Click to expand...
Good recommendations.

Occasionally, some articles will draw from actual peer reviewed papers, but it's usually a good idea to look up the actual paper yourself (if a link is provided, or if there's enough reference to be able to find the paper yourself). There are a bunch of unscrupulous folks who throw around 'info' and 'statistics' that are pure BS, and folks who side with the particular viewpoint will repeat it as gospel.

The problem is, it can be difficult for folks to make heads or tails of what a technical paper is actually saying if they're unfamiliar with the technical jargon, so a lot of folks rely on the articles for 'cliff notes' or a simplification/summarized conclusion.

This is where the potential dangers/pitfalls lie. Some writers/bloggers etc. may examine the papers/studies and draw some wild conclusions from them to try to support their position/bias.

Sometimes, this is simply because they don't really understand what they're looking at, but occasionally, it's because the writer is deliberately skewing an interpretation, or taking one tiny part of the paper to reach a false conclusion (that the authors of the actual paper themselves, have cautioned against focusing on).
 
As some of you may have already heard or read, now an autopsy performed on a 57 YO CA woman (Santa Clara County) who passed away on Feb 6th, has been ruled by the CDC to have been caused by COVID-19. This woman who was an internal auditor for a tech co in Silicon Valley with many offices across the globe including Wuhan, had also travelled to Beijing in November 2019.

This finding now shows that the COVID-19 virus was secretly spreading and infecting people at least in Northern Cali perhaps as early late Jan or early Feb. CA has now started to study suspicious deaths as early as Jan 2020 which were due to flu like symptoms but were eventually ruled out as flu deaths.

Personally speaking, I have not felt at 100% for a good couple of months this year. I will not dismiss my symptoms to be Psychosomatic in nature but I also know that I’m not totally crazy!
 
While there may have been some random cases in January, all the regression modeling, knowing how infectious and contagious this virus is, don't support community transmission beginning ANYWHERE in the US, much earlier than February.

In addition, the retarded 'Stanford study' claiming that there have been many more people infected, and potentially a lot of unknown recovered victims than previously assumed (and thus, a much lower CFR) has been shot down.

The IHME model currently being used to support reopening and "It's not that bad", is equally retarded.

The Seattle flu project that some claim, showed this bug was here as early as last year, has shown that their actual first confirmed case from samples taken in the flu study, were actually in late February.

There were just a LOT of respiratory viruses circulating this season.


Testing_PNG-1366306_jpeg-1366395.jpeg 033838CA-85E9-4135-A4E0-D40D83416433_jpe-1366795.jpeg

Note that the 'seasonal Coronaviruses' in the 2nd graphic, are the 4 common hCoVs (OC43, 229E, HKU1 and NL63) that circulate year round, causing about 15% of common colds.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top