Friday, July 31, 2020

Use Of Hydroxychloroquine

It has been well-established, and this blog has been a reminder, that one must not only pay attention to what is said, but also pay attention to what is not said.

THE BAN
This week, the FDA revoked use of hydroxycholroquine as a treatment for certain (emphasis mine) Covid-19 patients. Among the reasons given in the article, "Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use."

The WHO cited the reason as "The Solidarity Trial's hydroxychloroquine arm is being stopped, on the basis of evidence showing it does not reduce mortality for hospitalised #COVID19 patients." (quoted Tweet)

And there is also this Tweet from the WHO: "Aside from #COVID19, hydroxychloroquine is still regarded as a generally safe drug for patients with autoimmune diseases or #malaria. It helps many people with difficult and chronic conditions live better lives."


THE QUESTION
WHY is it "associated" with cardiac adverse events for hospitalized Covid-19 patients facing mortality (death), BUT "generally safe" for patients with autoimmune diseases or malaria???

Answer: Read what is said. Also read what is not said.

The article by the FDA did not infer causation - merely association. In science, one must eliminate all variables except the one being tested, and FDA cannot do that in this instance. Why? Because we already know there are certain comorbidities that increase the likelihood of fatality: cancer, heart conditions (heart disease, heart failure, COPD, etc.), Type 2 diabetes, morbid obesity, kidney disease, and immunocompromised states (organ transplants, sickle cell, etc.).

In summary, people hospitalized with comorbidity factor(s) - and therefore at higher risk of dying due to Covid-19 or the comorbidity or comorbidities, or the combination thereof - do not often get saved by use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ).

Maybe the use of HCQ is not the cause of the cardiac adverse events. Maybe these comorbidities are the cause of the cardiac events.


THE REAL USE
From another Tweet by the WHO: "This evidence does not apply to the use of hydroxychloroquine for preventing #COVID19 infections or treating non-hospitalized patients, two areas where we still need more evidence on the drug's effectiveness against the #coronavirus."

This statement lines up with the other statement by the WHO, indicating HCQ is "generally safe" for people who need treatment for malaria and autoimmune diseases.


SUMMARY
HCQ is not a miracle drug. Some people are in such a dire state that it cannot help them.
Nevertheless, it is still useful in treatment.
This author would speculate that use of HCQ should continue to be indicated, as the FDA also failed to determine any increase in fatalities due to its use and not due to a comorbidity. If this author was on "death's doorstep" he would certainly want it to be used.

For the record, the author of this post has contracted and survived COVID-19, as evidenced by a positive antibody test. The treatment consisted of everything one normally hears for treating a cold. The symptoms were not as severe as the media claims. The whole thing was over in just a few days. His opinion on Covid-19: "Spicy cold - not as bad as the flu."

Wednesday, July 15, 2020

Changing Their Tune - But Why?

It is a known fact that one must not only listen to what is said, but also to what is not said. Fact-finding depends on doing both well.

Earlier this year, an article came out stating that the wearing of masks does not offer protection from infection. From the article:
"We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic."

Just recently, the three doctors tried to put a spin on their statements:
"TO THE EDITOR:

We understand that some people are citing our Perspective article (published on April 1 at NEJM.org)1 as support for discrediting widespread masking. In truth, the intent of our article was to push for more masking, not less. It is apparent that many people with SARS-CoV-2 infection are asymptomatic or presymptomatic yet highly contagious and that these people account for a substantial fraction of all transmissions. Universal masking helps to prevent such people from spreading virus-laden secretions, whether they recognize that they are infected or not."

Let's break this down.
From the first article:
"The extent of marginal benefit of universal masking over and above these foundational measures is debatable."

"There may be additional benefits to broad masking policies that extend beyond their technical contribution to reducing pathogen transmission. Masks are visible reminders of an otherwise invisible yet widely prevalent pathogen and may remind people of the importance of social distancing and other infection-control measures."

"It is also clear that masks serve symbolic roles. Masks are not only tools, they are also talismans that may help increase health care workers’ perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in their hospitals. Although such reactions may not be strictly logical, we are all subject to fear and anxiety, especially during times of crisis. One might argue that fear and anxiety are better countered with data and education than with a marginally beneficial mask, particularly in light of the worldwide mask shortage, but it is difficult to get clinicians to hear this message in the heat of the current crisis. Expanded masking protocols’ greatest contribution may be to reduce the transmission of anxiety, over and above whatever role they may play in reducing transmission of Covid-19. The potential value of universal masking in giving health care workers the confidence to absorb and implement the more foundational infection-prevention practices described above may be its greatest contribution."

Based on these statements. 
Based on the fact that the only studies cited in the second article were all performed in clinical environments (which is directly in contrast to the gist of the first article). 
Based on growing evidence that many doctors and nurses are being threatened with their licenses or being fired if they do not propagate The Narrative ©
Based on what was not said - namely, the Doctors who "recanted" did not mention in the second article the fact that they advocated for more mask use for the simple purpose of "symbolic roles" in the first article. 

That last part is the most damning. 

I think they were right in their initial assessment. I think they are trying to "recant" so as to maintain their jobs or licensing. And I think the entire second article is bunk, and they don't believe it - because it contradicts the first article. A true scientist would say something along the lines of "when this article was written, it drew certain conclusions based on evidence available at the time. Now, with the introduction of new evidence, the former conclusion must be revisited." 

It's almost as if I have written scientific articles, quoting reviewed source articles. (I have)
And it's almost as if I have a degree in science and experience seeing these things. (I have)

Friday, July 10, 2020

Counter Evidence

#Scamdemic
#Plannedemic
#KungFlu

Since one side of this debate insists that masks be mandated, and they say there is no science behind the contrary, here are some links.

The death count is inflated. Crowder sources his work, as usual. The Cases count is also inflated.

Masks don't work. Seriously, they don't... and if they did, you wouldn't need mandates to make people wear them.

Bloomberg even admits many deaths attributed to COVID-19 without being tested at all.

There are many, many more. But people are stiff-necked and won't even accept these, much less the others. No reason to do extra work for no extra reward.

Thursday, July 9, 2020

Mandated Masks



If wearing a mask were so essential, then it would not need to be mandated.

If you presume to think it needs to be mandated, then you are presuming that you are more intelligent than one who refuses to wear one, and there is simply no evidence to support that assumption.

Wednesday, July 8, 2020

Don't Tread On My Thin Blue Line

Often, you will see someone display one of these two flags.  The Gadsden Flag ("don't tread on me") and the "Thin Blue Line" flag.  From time to time, you may see someone who displays both flags. 

That is just laughable - these two sentiments are diametrically opposed opposites. 

Don't tread on me, at its core, is a thought of individual freedom. The thin blue line is a thought of support of American Police.  There is nothing more the antithesis of personal freedom than the police. 

Folks who fly don't tread on me flags often mean that they are gun owners and they will not relinquish their firearms to government overreach.  Whom do they think will be performing the overreaching actions? Politicians will not be trying to pick up the guns - they will send the police. 

Although police are not outright seizing firearms at this time, it doesn't mean they aren't infringing rights.  Think about it - how often does a citizen come out ahead of an interaction with a police officer? At best, one can come out even.  Usually, one does not come out even. 

Indeed, usually a citizen comes away from a police encounter lighter in the wallet, or in handcuffs.  Doesn't sound like freedom to me. 

So, stop flying these things together.  They are opposites, you nitwit!


Tuesday, July 7, 2020

Not Going To Do IT

On social media, this post was to be found:

It is with a heavy heart I make this plea for help from my fellow (Patriots). As you may be aware the communists have been in Nashville burning down buildings and on the 4th the American legion was set afire by arsons. They have been in Johnson City beating up WHITE PEOPLE and passing out money to the communities encouraging them to buy guns and ammo for assaulting WHITE PEOPLE. After some tried to purchase firearms at a local pawn shop and were denied, they stood outside and harassed the shop owner for 8 hours trying to push their way in. When he pushed them back out they filed assault charges.
The communists target is historic Rogersville Tennessee this Saturday. Your fellow Tennesseans are asking for your help to protect the history and the residents. I will attempt to meet with the NEW BLACK PANTHER leaders and see if I can put out this fire on Saturday before they rage but I need security and bodies. I fear this won’t go well based on what we’ve been seeing. My best friend in East Tennessee and I both are looking for armor or gear that anyone can spare. I can’t let her go in alone or unprepared. Chest plates and carriers, head gear any defense gear we can borrow to protect ourselves with. There are other 3%, Militia, Bikers and Patriots coming and we have a base camp ready to accommodate campers from outta town not far from Rogersville.
I am also trying to make contact in advance with Homeland Security and Counter Terrorist agencies but so far no luck. Does anyone have a real contact with one of these agencies?


It is possible that the threat is real, I will not argue that point. 

But if you think I'm going to Rogersville, TN this weekend, you are sorely mistaken. And there are several good reasons why:

1. Arming up and going toward the possible violence is actually in violation of the law (for a civilian) - as well it should be. Even if it was not illegal...

2. The police will only arrest the good folks, not the violent rioters. We have seen this before. If you think the police are your ally, then you must be a violent rioter, or you are delusional. Even in this passage it tells of police arresting the shopkeeper, not those that were damaging the shop and assaulting him. 

3. I think it is a trap. Intentionally set. To either test the resolve and commitment of the patriots, or to "get them."



Also - the all-caps "beating up white people" is a turn off. I am very much for the advancement of the white race, but that does not promote me to action over the assault of any other race. If media gets wind of this, you know how they will paint it.