[alancalverd]

Doctor of Veterinary Medicine, eh? Does he torture animals for Big Pharma, or develop vaccines for bovine mastitis?

So he says we should do nothing to prevent people becoming infected with COVID. How long did they put up with him  telling them to let ebola rip rather that vaccinate people against it?

Had all governments responded as quickly and thoroughly to COVID as they did to Ebola, and in particular tightly quarantined the Wuhan area rather than pretend there wasn't a problem, the problem would have been contained within Vanden Bossche's range of experience. Fortunately it seems that African governments have the wit to tell the rest of the world that they have a problem and want help, unlike the idiots who run China, Europe and the USA, whose only concern is electoral popularity.

So we now have a very different problem, to which mass vaccination seems to be the only response. It worked for polio and smallpox - why not COVID?

[Kryptid]

Currently, but I do not see why that would be a reason to dismiss them out of hand. Rather surely such an interview should spark an investigation into finding the truth.

Sure, investigations are fine. But until such a thing is done, we should take the claims of an anonymous person as just that: claims by an anonymous person. There is little weight behind it.

As I said before there seems to be an agenda to suppress all negative information about the current vaccines. Supressing data isn't scientific

Evidence?

are you not concerned that health care workers feel the only way to tell the truth is by doing so in secret, in the same way someone fleeing the mafia would.

Since when was it established that this anonymous source was telling the truth?

Ongoing mass vaccination deployments are “highly-likely to further enhance ‘adaptive’ immune escape as none of the current vaccines will prevent replication/transmission of viral variants”

The vaccines do work against the mutant variants, just at a reduced efficacy.

[evan_au]

Ongoing mass vaccination deployments are “highly-likely to further enhance ‘adaptive’ immune escape as none of the current vaccines will prevent replication/transmission of viral variants”

Allowing the virus to spread with minimal controls (eg in USA, UK and Brazil, last year) is certain to produce many variants of the virus.
- Some of these variants will be worse matches for the vaccine,
- and also worse matches for those who have achieved immunity by recovering from infection.

 So it is important to both:
- reduce community infection numbers to reduce the generation of new variants (eg quarantine, social distancing masks, lockdowns, contact tracing)
- and rollout the vaccine to reduce the number of people who will get infected in future

And we need to monitor people with compromised immune systems, as they may not be able to control the virus (even after vaccination), and some of them will continue to throw off new variants.
- These individuals may need a higher dose of vaccine than usual.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Currently, but I do not see why that would be a reason to dismiss them out of hand. Rather surely such an interview should spark an investigation into finding the truth.

Sure, investigations are fine. But until such a thing is done, we should take the claims of an anonymous person as just that: claims by an anonymous person. There is little weight behind it.

As I said before there seems to be an agenda to suppress all negative information about the current vaccines. Supressing data isn't scientific

Evidence?

Ok what reality are you living in there are plenty of examples today of qualified professionals being banned on Facebook and Twitter for expressing concerns, or sharing information those controlling the current narrative do not like.

are you not concerned that health care workers feel the only way to tell the truth is by doing so in secret, in the same way someone fleeing the mafia would.

Since when was it established that this anonymous source was telling the truth?

Not the point, we currently are living in a situation where health workers only seem to get air time,  if they do so secretly. Which is rediculas.

Ongoing mass vaccination deployments are “highly-likely to further enhance ‘adaptive’ immune escape as none of the current vaccines will prevent replication/transmission of viral variants”

The vaccines do work against the mutant variants, just at a reduced efficacy.

That's not the point of concern, the point of concern being raised is that the vaccines are doing nothing to prevent transmission. And as they are not going to halt transmission as Fauci himself said they wouldn't, vaccinated people can still spread the virus and increase the number of mutations and also there are possible implications to mutations from vaccinated people.

We should be looking at treatments not vaccines. Which I have been talking about since the beginning, treatments end transmission.

[Kryptid]

Ok what reality are you living in there are plenty of examples today of qualified professionals being banned on Facebook and Twitter for expressing concerns, or sharing information those controlling the current narrative do not like.

If there are plenty of examples, then please show me some.

Not the point

So it's not the point whether or not someone who is anonymous is telling the truth? Right...

we currently are living in a situation where health workers only seem to get air time,  if they do so secretly.

Do you have evidence for that?

he point of concern being raised is that the vaccines are doing nothing to prevent transmission.

Yes, they do: https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/coronavirus/article249950469.html

We should be looking at treatments not vaccines.

Ideally, we would want both.

[Bored chemist]

We should be looking at treatments not vaccines.

That's... a less common point of view than...
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prevention_is_better_than_cure

Can you explain why history has always got this wrong?
(Preferably without making false assumptions)

[evan_au]

We should be looking at treatments not vaccines.

The current vaccines will reduce severe disease by more than 90% (for current variants).
- These vaccines have undergone extensive safety & efficacy trials
- So the priority is to deploy the vaccines we have approved
 
Meanwhile, the search for safe and effective treatments can continue
- There was a clinical trial of Hydroxychloroquine. It is not very safe, and completely ineffective. Scratch the Trump candidate.
- There have been trials of monoclonal antibodies. They have been shown to be pretty safe, and somewhat effective.
- There is a clinical trial of Ivermectin underway. This is known to be quite safe, but we don't yet know if it is effective. It could be rapidly deployed if (and only if) it is proved effective.
- Meanwhile, the 6-9 month process of clinical trials and approvals can continue for any other candidate treatments that labs around the world can identify (plus the 3-6 month process of setting up a factory, if it is a new product)

Bear in mind that viruses can evade treatments, too, especially if:
- They aren't 100% effective at prevention
- they are used by the general population as a preventative (prophylactic).
- They aren't used rigorously at an effective dose

[Bored chemist]

There is a clinical trial of Ivermectin underway. This is known to be quite safe, but we don't yet know if it is effective. It could be rapidly deployed if (and only if) it is proved effective.

Just a quick note of caution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_misinformation#Ivermectin

[alancalverd]

vaccines are doing nothing to prevent transmission

Transmission requires an infectious transmitter to be in contact with an unprotected receiver. Vaccines reduce the numbers of both, and thus reduce transmission throughout the community.

The only action that completely prevents transmission is total quarantine.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

We should be looking at treatments not vaccines.

The current vaccines will reduce severe disease by more than 90% (for current variants).
- These vaccines have undergone extensive safety & efficacy trials
- So the priority is to deploy the vaccines we have approved
 
Meanwhile, the search for safe and effective treatments can continue
- There was a clinical trial of Hydroxychloroquine. It is not very safe,

On what basis are you claiming that Hydroxychloroquin isnt safe?.
It's a malaria medication licenced for decades and used by millions.

and completely ineffective.

Bad studies, the original study that said HCQ didn't work and started all this,  was retracted because it was based on bad science. All studies since have failed to combine HCQ with Zink and vitamin C and also failed to start the treatments early once the patients show symptoms.

Mainly the studies have been giving HCQ to people at the end of the Virus' activity after the damage is done then claiming its ineffective. Just bad science.

The Association American Frountline doctors, which is made up of doctors working in the A and E departments across America have been saying that they have seen good results using HCQ and are protesting the media behaviour in discrediting the treatment. Seems to be linked to Trump suggesting it was effective and the media determined to rubbish it simply to make Trump look bad.

Some have claimed this is simply about money as HCQ is a cheep option and big pharma want it out of the picture.

[Kryptid]

All studies since have failed to combine HCQ with Zink and vitamin C and also failed to start the treatments early once the patients show symptoms.

So you are saying that the conditions of the initial study have not been replicated in subsequent studies? If so, then that means that findings of the initial study have not been verified. Without successful replication, you can't say whether the treatment really works or not. Feel free to say that we should be trying replicate the initially study more faithfully, but please do not say that we should be using it because we know it is effective. If the findings haven't been verified via replication, then we don't know that it's effective.

The Association American Frountline doctors

Should not be trusted as a reliable source of information: https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/90536, https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking-pseudoscience/back-away-americas-frontline-doctors, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Frontline_Doctors

Your prior post makes it look like you are trying to inject conspiracy theory thinking into the COVID-19 pandemic again. If I'm not mistaken, that's what got you suspended last time. You might want to tread lightly.

[Bored chemist]

The Association American Frountline doctors, which is...

Noted for telling lies...
"America's Frontline Doctors is an American right-wing political organization. Founded by Simone Gold and promoted by the Tea Party Patriots, "
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Frontline_Doctors

[evan_au]

How long should a Vaccine Trial take?

Answer: As short as possible, but not shorter...
- If you make the trial longer than necessary, more people will die before the medication is approved.
- If you make the trial shorter than necessary, you will not know whether the treatment works or not, or whether it has significant side-effects

From what I have heard, the size of a Phase 3 trial should be big enough (sufficient treated & monitored patients) and long enough (in duration) to capture around 150-200 adverse events.
- Where, for a COVID vaccine, "adverse event" might be "ending up in hospital", "ending up in ICU" or "Death", due to COVID-19.
- And, to know if the vaccine is effective or not, it must be a double-blinded study with a placebo. The adverse events are counted across both the placebo and treatment arms of the trial.

Clearly, you will reach this number of adverse events quicker if there is more virus around, and more people dying of it, so a useful trial will be shorter.
- Fortunately (for a rapid trial), we have had several governments around the world who said "Don't worry, it's just like the flu", "go about your normal business", "don't do shutdowns..." etc.
- Unfortunately (for the population of those countries), this led to uncontrolled outbreaks, overloaded hospitals and excess deaths.
 

[Jolly2 (OP)]

All studies since have failed to combine HCQ with Zink and vitamin C and also failed to start the treatments early once the patients show symptoms.

So you are saying that the conditions of the initial study have not been replicated in subsequent studies?

No, if the initial study was retracted because of the bad science involved repeating it is rather rediculas.

If so, then that means that findings of the initial study have not been verified. Without successful replication, you can't say whether the treatment really works or not.

Exactly, yet some how every newspaper and media organisations is claiming it doesnt based on bad studies.

It was a French Doctor that first claimed he had very good results treating patients with HCQ, Trump was repeating what that French doctor had claimed, then there was this now retracted study claiming it didnt work and the media ran with it.

Feel free to say that we should be trying replicate the initially study more faithfully, but please do not say that we should be using it because we know it is effective. If the findings haven't been verified via replication, then we don't know that it's effective.

As I stated before, HCQ has to be given earily, almost all the studies are giving HCQ to patients at the end of the virus' activity, after the damage is already done,  HCQ needs to be administered earily, as earily as possible as it should interfere with Covids ability to infect cells. But HCQ need to combined with Zink to allow that process to function. Vitamin C also.

So doing a study late in the infection, and not combining with Zink and vitamin C is a waste of time in my opinion.

The Association American Frountline doctors

Should not be trusted as a reliable source of information: https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/90536, https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking-pseudoscience/back-away-americas-frontline-doctors, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Frontline_Doctors

Wikipedia is a false information site,  there are countless examples today of fake information on there especially about individuals and groups who have all tried to get this bad information removed or changed and failed to do so. Wikipedia is an untrustworthy site.

Your prior post makes it look like you are trying to inject conspiracy theory thinking into the COVID-19 pandemic again. If I'm not mistaken, that's what got you suspended last time. You might want to tread lightly.

No I was suspended last time for a joke. Without explination, and without warning. I just found my account suspended with no explanation at all. But it clear on the joke thread, the mod that did this wrote after reading the joke, you need a break from the site, ofcourse I couldn't read it while suspended.

[Bored chemist]

there are countless examples today of fake information on there

Please  provide a link to a few.

[Kryptid]

No, if the initial study was retracted because of the bad science involved repeating it is rather rediculas.

So then why would you trust that it works if you claim that it's bad science?

As I stated before, HCQ has to be given earily

How do you know? Where is the replicated study that showed such to be the requirement?

But HCQ need to combined with Zink to allow that process to function. Vitamin C also.

Based on what follow-up study? Aren't you the one claiming that no one successfully replicated that study (and as such, no one verified whether this was true or not)?

Wikipedia is a false information site,  there are countless examples today of fake information on there especially about individuals and groups who have all tried to get this bad information removed or changed and failed to do so. Wikipedia is an untrustworthy site.

Given that we are discussing the Wikipedia issue elsewhere, then please address the other links I supplied.

No I was suspended last time for a joke.

That was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. I see what goes on behind the scenes. Your conspiracy theory posts about COVID absolutely contributed strongly to your suspension.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

No, if the initial study was retracted because of the bad science involved repeating it is rather rediculas.

So then why would you trust that it works if you claim that it's bad science?

As I stated before, HCQ has to be given earily

How do you know? Where is the replicated study that showed such to be the requirement?

But HCQ need to combined with Zink to allow that process to function. Vitamin C also.

Based on what follow-up study? Aren't you the one claiming that no one successfully replicated that study (and as such, no one verified whether this was true or not)?

No I was claiming all the current studies have been bad, not just the initial study that was retracted but also the studies that followed, sadly who pays the study somehow has a huge impact on the results, if you could find a study that gave HCQ early in the infection and combined it with zinc and high dose Vitamin C please share it, sadly you'll find none of them do.

Wikipedia is a false information site,  there are countless examples today of fake information on there especially about individuals and groups who have all tried to get this bad information removed or changed and failed to do so. Wikipedia is an untrustworthy site.

Given that we are discussing the Wikipedia issue elsewhere, then please address the other links I supplied.

Really cute you know I'm not allowed to share links currently.

No I was suspended last time for a joke.

That was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. I see what goes on behind the scenes. Your conspiracy theory posts about COVID absolutely contributed strongly to your suspension.

What conspiracy theory post?

That covid came.from a laboratory isnt a conspiracy theory, it's one possibie hypothesis amoung others, a hypothesis that many scientists subscribe to today. Concerns about the mRNA vaccine also are comming from the scientific community, they are concerns not conspiracies. And to label legitimate concerns conspiracies, is just being dismissive with no legitimacy to do so. We need more discussion not less by throwing around the conspiracy theory label wildly Nilly you are making the situation worse not better.
If someone has a concern that's incorrect you can correct them and not simply label them a conspiracy theorist, much more helpful.

[jeffreyH]

Really cute you know I'm not allowed to share links currently.

You were asked to address them, not post them. You stop being cute!

[jeffreyH]

The group right-wing talking point in the USA is China bad! This is to distract from the total lack of policy proposals to help ordinary citizens. The idea that the virus came out of the lab in Wuhan fits their narrative perfectly. How do you debunk it when every right wing psycho politician is parroting it repeatedly?

[Bored chemist]

That covid came.from a laboratory isnt a conspiracy theory, it's one possibie hypothesis amoung others,

If it had happened then some people would know about it.
And they are not admitting to it.
That group of people getting together and agreeing not to admit wat happened is a conspiracy.
So it is a conspiracy theory.

Stop trying to pretend otherwise, it just makes you look sillier.