Crazy (and not-so-crazy) shit about Covid-19

[windwalker]

Thought the video presented now censored represented valid viewpoints by those who are doctors treating patients in the field. Those that I know in the medical field who are doctors both here in the US and in Taiwan tend to support the conclusions drawn by what was shown in the video.

Hardly about what anyone wants to hear more to the point of being able to make ones own conclusions based on different viewpoints.

Or is this about something else?
Talking about those people and their viewpoints.

Maybe that’s it, “ those” people hearing what they want to hear instead of being able to weigh what’s before them against their own understanding.

At any rate I posted the original clip finding that it presented
a very different narrative, with the rationale of why it’s not more widely known,
Now apparently being censored by the Masters of the universe.

[Steve James]

I don't think any doctor is NOT using hydroxychloroquine because of Trump. It's not worth one single death. It doesn't matter whether he was right or not. He will certainly not take responsibility for any deaths.

[Steve James]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU3Jh_oZZE0

[Giles]

Well, GIles, here's the thing. Let's assume that claims about the effectiveness of hydrochloroquine are not simply attempts to say "See, Trump (or Bolsonaro) were right all along." Ok, but nobody has said or shown that any drug prevents catching or passing the corona virus. I.e., a person has to contract the virus before they'll even need hydroxychloroquine. I'd bet that those who believe of the drug's effectiveness won't wear masks --or will find/support reasons not to. However, both Trump and Bolsonaro downplayed the seriousness of the virus. If they were right, there wouldn't be any need for hydroxychloroquine.

But, ok, suppose it works as they promised in the video. If hospitals in Republican, Trump supporting states like Texas and Florida are not using hydroxychloroquine, it's not because they're trying to smear Trump. People are dying, and I think it's more likely that Trump would let them die than their doctors would. And, the Texas doctors would be the first to prove the drug's effectiveness.

We're going to have 150K deaths by the first week of August. But, the campaign argument will be "See, what we did saved millions of people" from the disease we said was not "worse than the flu" and would "just disappear." So, even if hydroxychloroquine works, we'll need a shitload for all the people who'll need it. That is, unless people take responsibility and ignore what's irrelevant --like whether the orange man "was" right about anything.

Well, Giles, here's the thing....

Indeed, Steve.

For WW: I won't do the full point-by-point response (but I could ) - I'll confine myself to a few comments on the video "Dr. Simone Gold Exposes the Truth About Coronavirus and Hydroxychloroquine".

- She is right about the first big study about the inefficacy of HCQ for Covid-19 being withdrawn because the source data were junk. But that doesn't mean (logically ) that HCQ is on the contrary efficacious. And she omits to mention that all recognized, methodologically based studies since then have also strongly indicated that HCQ isn't efficacious in this area. She presents no evidence or references indicating that HCQ is efficacious against Covid-19. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxych ... e#COVID-19

- Asked about whether she thinks that USA schools should re-open in full after the summer vacation, she says 'absolutely' and argues that children are hardly ever affected seriously by Covid-19. Which is true. However, she completely ignores the fact that this is not the reason why one might want to keep schools closed, or at least subject to mitigation measures. Namely that children may then act as potent links in the infection chain, passing the virus on to other older people who may become more seriously ill or die. The extent to which this actually happens is still unclear, but this risk has not yet been ruled out. Her failure to mention this consideration at all (either presenting arguments/evidence to the contrary or acknowledging that this is still an uncertain factor) when drawing a conclusion about school seems, for a medical professional, totally disingenuous. Either she is stupid (and hence incompetent in her field) or she is making her medical role subservient to a political role.

- Speaking of which, with the exception of her comments on why HCQ isn't that dangerous for the heart after all, the tenor of all her arguments is not medical, but political. She implies (surprise!) a huge conspiracy on the part of "scientific journals, the media, state and federal" to discredit HCQ as efficacious for Covid-19. Without presenting any grounded evidence that it IS indeed efficacious. So WHY, pray tell, does she think that all these highly heterogeneous entities are doing this? She doesn't answer this. What possible reason could there be, when a cheap, quick-fix treatment for Covid-19 would be a blessing for humanity? The implication here, I guess, is to make President Trump look bad !. In which case all those entities would be saying "To hell with public health. Let 'em die, as long as we can take Trump down a peg!" Gold doesn't say this explicitly of course, but this argument about reasons for not favoring HCQ has indeed been touted by quite a few pundits and politicians. So is there any other reason one can assume for journals and medical authorities not coming out in favor of HCQ? If so, please enlighten me. Otherwise, the great majority of her statements in this video are, as said, NOT based on medical arguments and evidence (or are clearly faulty) but on political arguments.

- If other doctors in the main white-coat video say that they personally have successfully treated many Covid-19 patients using HCQ, well great, then let them present their corresponding medical records for peer examination, analysis and review. Otherwise, especially in view of the political basis and background for this group, such statements have as much credibility and value as Trump's "It's going to disappear. Eventually...". Here in Germany I'm a state-certified 'Heilpraktiker' (naturopath, more or less), specializing in the craniosacral method (a little like subtle osteopathy). This can be a useful complementary method for some kinds of ailments, but not at all for infectious diseases. If I were to make a video stating that I have prevented or mitigated or cured many cases of Covid-19, but the government are trying to cover this up, so come to me for treatment .... what would your response be?

So, dear WW, that's why I "feel qualified to judge Dr Gold's findings". Because they aren't "findings", they are politically driven and often logically flawed claims. Get the difference?

And should people be allowed to judge for themselves, instead of these videos being censored? Well, that's a basic political consideration, isn't it. Should total freedom of speech apply on the internet, on YouTube etc. or under certain clearly defined circumstances should this freedom of speech be curtailed? I can put out a video saying that drinking bleach is a good prevention or cure for Covid-19, the side-effects are minimal, and if other so-called medical authorities who warn against this, it's because they want to make lots of money with expensive vaccines. I can quote my state-certified naturopath status as proof that I know what I'm talking about. And I can gaze with conviction, passionately, into the camera and say: "Overcome your doubts, don't be one of the sheeple, believe me!"
So should that video be allowed to remain up

[windwalker]

And should people be allowed to judge for themselves, instead of these videos being censored? Well, that's a basic political consideration, isn't it. Should total freedom of speech apply on the internet, on YouTube etc. or under certain clearly defined circumstances should this freedom of speech be curtailed?

It's a basic freedom of speech issue. It's called freedom of speech, the platforms that its said on are said to be content providers,
very soon the rules by which they allow content to be posted on their web sites will be changed.

Instead of just being content providers, they will be classed as publishers that they've become.

Without presenting any grounded evidence that it IS indeed efficacious. So WHY, pray tell, does she think that all these highly heterogeneous entities are doing this? She doesn't answer this

Had the web site been able to remain up, and not censured one would have been able to review their findings in a white paper.
Of course being censured its not up for review, unless one down loaded it to review it for themselves.

a small extract

White Paper on Hydroxychloroquine

Dr. Simone Gold, MD, JD

Introduction: General Consensus HCQ is safe...............................................................1
Rheumatologists
Cardiologists
Ophthalmologists
Safety Studies ...................................................................................................................4
2000-2020 (twenty years) study
FDA Database (fifty years)
CDC Statement
American Heart Association
Efficacy Studies (sample) ................................................................................................7
February 19, 2020
March 4, 2020
March 20, 2020
March 22, 2020
March 22, 2020
April 11, 2020
April 13, 2020
April 17, 2020
April 21, 2020
April 24, 2020
April 30, 2000
May 15, 2020
May 16, 2020
June 6, 2020
June 20,2020
June 29, 2020
June 29, 2020
June 30, 2020
July 3, 2020
Corruption of the Scientific Journals ..............................................................................10
Corruption of the Media .................................................................................................12
Censorship of the Public “Town Square” & Surgisphere ......................................13
Excessive & Punitive Regulations at the State Level & Off-Label Use ........................13
Misstatements at the Federal Level.............................................................15
Why Has HCQ Been Maligned .................................................................19
Implications for the USA if restrictions on HCQ are not lifted immediately..............21
Conclusion .....................................................................................................................28

This white paper is to draw the reader’s attention to the indisputable safety of
hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), an analog of the same quinine found in tree barks that George
Washington used to protect his troops.

The modern version has been FDA approved for
65 years, has shown remarkable efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 and its use is being
wrongly restricted despite the immediate danger to the American people and the rest of the
world.

We speak in support of immediately reversing the massive, irresponsible disinformation
campaign that is literally preventing doctors from dispensing HCQ, advocating as well
that it be made available over the counter in the United States. This is logistically easy to
do in a manner that ensures the supply and appropriate dispensation.

Introduction:
The purpose of this white paper is to dispassionately present the evidence regarding the
safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine and determine its proper role in the current
pandemic.

General Consensus that Hydroxychloroquine is Safe
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been FDA approved for over 65 years and has been used
billions of times throughout the entire world without restriction. For many decades it has
been given to: pregnant women, breastfeeding women, children, elderly patients, immune
compromised patients and healthy persons.



In the USA it is used most often in three situations: systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE),
rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and as malaria prophylaxis for travelers. These three situations
happen to represent three different types of populations.
Patients with SLE are immune compromised.
Patients with RA are elderly.
Travelers are younger and typically healthy.
Although all doctors can and do prescribe HCQ, because it is most commonly used for
SLE and RA, rheumatology specialists are the physicians in America who prescribe it the
most. Although it is in the safest category of medication and it is virtually always safely
used, the two most common possible complications fall under the specialty of cardiology
and ophthalmology.
So let us see what these three types of specialties say.

You’er not a doctor have not treated parents for covid 19
you seem to cast this as politically motivated, instead of something that "doctors"
presented as doctors in the interest of allowing people to have a choice of possible treatments

Their views now censured by other "non" doctors on platforms that are supposedly
content providers allowing people to have access to information by
which they can make their own judgments.

At least in China, where content is censured and people know its censured its done by the government
with their own criteria for doing so...

People are able to get around it, to the supposedly "free speech" platforms that ironically
are not free speech as they do censure their content. China, aware of this understanding it does not allow
it to be shown they "censure it" ....kinda funny right?

I can quote my state-certified naturopath status as proof that I know what I'm talking about. And I can gaze with conviction, passionately, into the camera and say: "Overcome your doubts, don't be one of the sheeple, believe me!"
So should that video be allowed to remain up

yes.

your entitled to your own conclusions as to their motivations just as others are for theirs who may not agree.
the point is that now this information is not up for review a decision made by non medical entities

you seem to be ok with this?

[Steve James]

Yep. Free speech means that you can tell everyone that scientists are using alien dna. It doesn't mean that anyone has the obligation to listen or publish it.

Like I said, if the brown nosing Republican governors and doctors in Texas thought hydroxychloroquine worked, they'd be the first to scream it from the mountaintops. There is no rule or law anywhere that prevents doctors from using the drug. Look it up. It was used in NYC in April and May, and then discontinued. https://www.nyp.org/news/Hydroxychloroq ... outine-Use

It's almost August. What were Texas and Florida waiting for? Nothing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u0w7dcFzCk

Note that he, on the ground, says that masks should be worn. He never mentions hydroxychloroquine.

[windwalker]

So, dear WW, that's why I "feel qualified to judge Dr Gold's findings". Because they aren't "findings", they are politically driven and often logically flawed claims. Get the difference?

your not a doctor, who has treated patients for covid 19
you're a "state-certified naturopath"


Because I downloaded their white paper in order to examine the findings I can make my own decision as to whether I agree or not. You and others cannot because they are censored by those in Control of the platforms with their rationale
for not allowing you to see it.

Get the difference?

[windwalker]

It doesn't mean that anyone has the obligation to listen or publish it.

Very correct “ publish it“

Except they say they are not publishers, they say they are platform providers
Free and open to any speech as defined by US law.

Hopefully this will be rectified soon, they will fall under the same laws as publishers.

As content platforms they are not open to litigation
In the same way that publishers are for their content.

See how it works. They act as publishers while saying they are not protected by law that allows them to do so
Because they are not publishers.

1984

[Trick]

Naturopath!?,,,,,,is that the same as Anti-vaccer and Herd-immunity'ist ??....

[windwalker]

“The petition requests that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) clarify that Section 230 does not permit social media companies that alter or editorialize users’ speech to escape civil liability,”

Matter of time.
Once the democrats, understand it’s not something they really control,
the process will be much faster.

In China, they don’t pretend to have free speech on the net
as the US claims when in actuality it is not.

Strangely enough the US government does not seem to be in control of the speech on the net it claims is free.
It’s abdicated control to private entities that in many instances are against it.

Soon to be corrected

[Steve James]

Published? For f's sake, you published it yourself. It's the internet. If someone wants to read it, they can. But, it's not about free "speech," of course, since it's a "paper." I'd say the outrage at censorship i's just to deflect peoples anger from the handling of the virus to the media.

Texas and Florida were following Trump's advice to the letter. If the drug worked, it would have worked there, and we would know it. They are obviously in need right now. So, that's why I don't believe the conclusions of the "white coat" video.

Secondly, it argues that wearing masks is unnecessary. Most of the "experts" agree. So, in a surge in a pandemic, outlets decided to remove a video that would encourage people to disobey or ignore the guidelines set down by their own disease control specialists. However, you're going to spread it in the interest of free speech. Well, imo, Texas is not in this situation because people were wearing masks. People who believe the white coats and of a global conspiracy against hydroxychloroquine and for masks will resist wearing masks and expect the hydro to work. That's more dangerous than saying the earth is flat.

Anyway, I think it's safe to say that, if the number of hospitalizations somewhere is going up, it's not yet safe to reopen. Why? Because if it's going up, it's getting worse. It's as simple as that. We want it to -at least- not be getting worse, and ideally we want it to be getting better. Just don't fudge the numbers.

[Steve James]

Strangely enough the US government does not seem to be in control of the speech on the net it claims is free.
It’s abdicated control to private entities that in many instances are against it.

Soon to be corrected

Wow. Now that's Orwellian, for those who've actually read the book. There's a pinch of Putin and pravda in there, but also a bit of Marx and "means of." Bravo.

[windwalker]

Published? For f's sake, you published it yourself.

For fucks sake, You don’t seem to understand the difference between publishing their own paper to be reviewed by others and people copying extracts for illustrative purposes.

Or do you think that was their complete paper?

[Giles]

So, dear WW, that's why I "feel qualified to judge Dr Gold's findings". Because they aren't "findings", they are politically driven and often logically flawed claims. Get the difference?

your not a doctor, who has treated patients for covid 19
you're a "state-certified naturopath"


Because I downloaded their white paper in order to examine the findings I can make my own decision as to whether I agree or not. You and others cannot because they are censored by those in Control of the platforms with their rationale
for not allowing you to see it.

Get the difference?

Sorry, very busy now, so just a quick answer then I have to run.
I didn't mention my status as a state-certified naturopath as a way of saying I'm qualified to talk about HCQ. Rather, that because I hold a certain (low ) level of knowledge about conventional medicine (qualifying involves passing a fairly tough test in this) and I have some healing/therapeutic experience, which may even sound convincing to some viewers of YouTube etc., DOESN'T mean I'm an "expert" whose voice should be placed on an equal footing with real, acknowledged experts in the fields of virology, epidemiology etc. Gold claims to have (successfully) treated patients with Covid-19 using HCQ. I already presented a few reasons why I find her account, her argumentation, her motives and thus her current credibility to be very low at the moment. Put bluntly, unless her 'successful treatments' can be substantiated by stringent peer review and duplication of results by other (non-Tea Party-backed) research groups then basically I suspect her of lying.
Neither you nor I can really get to grips with her own account in the white paper - we're simply not qualified. Peer reviewers would be qualified. When she talks in the video, I am however 'qualified' enough to tell that she's not straight-up. Hence my considerable scepticism about her in this respect.

[Giles]

Naturopath!?,,,,,,is that the same as Anti-vaccer and Herd-immunity'ist ??....

Not necessarily. In Germany, you have to pass the Heilpraktiker exam and gain the qualification in order to practice any "healing", "curative" and/or "alleviating" method. The exam itself is purely about conventional medicine, and hence is science-based. Once you have the qualification, you can then go off in pretty much any direction you like, subject to sensible limitations. Many of my "colleague" Heilpraktiker are indeed of the more esoteric or even anti-science, anti-conventional medicine persuasion, and I'd say some are pretty much wacko. But we're not all like that . Practising a non-conventional, non-science-recognized healing art doesn't automatically mean one is at odds with science or conventional medicine. Just like some 'conventional' medical practitioners are also open to some (but not all!) 'alternative' methods. Some even do both, such as a family doctor of my acquaintance who worked for many years in A&E and also gives craniosacral treatments.
Synergy is possible.