C19 Topics

[ATeam]

This is a C19 topic informative thread.
What is your definition of a quack doctor? In your opinion if a doctor prescribes Ivermectin as a early preventative from serious sickness from the virus, are they a quack doctor?

The dictionary.com definition of quack works for me:

"noun. a fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill. a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan. adjective. being a quack: a quack psychologist who complicates everyone's problems."

If a doctor prescribes Ivermectin as an early preventative from serious sickness from the virus, AND if there is no scientific basis or little scientific basis for doing so, I would call that doctor a quack.

I noticed this in the journal article you shared. "This work was inspired by the prior literature review of Dr Pierre Kory."

I consider Dr. Pierre Kory to be a quack, so I am highly skeptical of this article's conclusions. I'm not dismissing the conclusions out of hand because of the reference to someone I consider a quack. A wise friend of mine once said "I listen to everybody because even an idiot says something intelligent once in a while." But I'm disinclined to accept the conclusions as valid until they are confirmed by more credible sources like the FDA and CDC; or as Turtle might say, until the conclusions are confirmed by the numbers.

I believe the FDA is sponsoring research now on the use of Ivermectin as a COVID-19 preventative and/or treatment. It will be interesting to learn what those findings are. This is a legitimate question and I'm glad to see it being researched by credible organizations.

Quackery dressed up in a journal wrapper is still quackery. Again, I'm not dismissing this article's conclusions out of hand, but it being presented in journal format does not automatically mean it should be believed.

 

[Turtle]

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19... : American Journal of Therapeutics

mortality, in secondary outcomes, and in chemoprophylaxis, among people with, or at high risk of, COVID-19 infection. Data sources: We searched bibliographic databases up to April 25, 2021. Two review authors sifted for studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were...

journals.lww.com

View attachment 20893

Thanks for that. I haven't really looked into ivermectin at all, certainly not any studies about it. It appears that it can be more beneficial in reducing deaths than I thought. It's interesting that they state it needs to be used early in the course of treatment, which based on what I know about how ivermectin works makes perfect sense. Ivermectin works to prevent foreign organisms from replicating in the body, so if you wait too long and allow covid to get a replicating foothold, ivermectin won't reduce the virus numbers that have already replicated. But if you start ivermectin soon enough, it keeps the viral load down to a minimum and allows your body to fight it more effectively until the virus burns itself out.

 

[muttly]

The dictionary.com definition of quack works for me:

"noun. a fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill. a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan. adjective. being a quack: a quack psychologist who complicates everyone's problems."

If a doctor prescribes Ivermectin as an early preventative from serious sickness from the virus, AND if there is no scientific basis or little scientific basis for doing so, I would call that doctor a quack.

I noticed this in the journal article you shared. "This work was inspired by the prior literature review of Dr Pierre Kory."

I consider Dr. Pierre Kory to be a quack, so I am highly skeptical of this article's conclusions. I'm not dismissing the conclusions out of hand because of the reference to someone I consider a quack. A wise friend of mine once said "I listen to everybody because even an idiot says something intelligent once in a while." But I'm disinclined to accept the conclusions as valid until they are confirmed by more credible sources like the FDA and CDC; or as Turtle might say, until the conclusions are confirmed by the numbers.

I believe the FDA is sponsoring research now on the use of Ivermectin as a COVID-19 preventative and/or treatment. It will be interesting to learn what those findings are. This is a legitimate question and I'm glad to see it being researched by credible organizations.

Quackery dressed up in a journal wrapper is still quackery. Again, I'm not dismissing this article's conclusions out of hand, but it being presented in journal format does not automatically mean it should be believed.

Two doctors: Zev Zelenko and Robert Malone
Both recommend Ivermectin. Zelenko’s recommends hydrixchlorquine and after looking at the data can use Ivermectin as a early regimen also.

 

[ATeam]

Two doctors: Zev Zelenko and Robert Malone
Both recommend Ivermectin. Zelenko’s recommends hydrixchlorquine and after looking at the data can use Ivermectin as a early regimen also.

So What? There is always someone recommending something or other. But so what?

 

[danthewolf00]

With this virus it was a throw it at the wall and see what sticks kind of thing so don't call doctors quacks.....doctor fauci yes hes a quack and a sell out to his profession for fame and fortune.

 

[muttly]

So What? There is always someone recommending something or other. But so what?

It may be so what to you. You already had the virus. Move along then. To others though it may be a good deal or even a big deal that doctors are looking at other supplements they may benefit people who haven’t had the virus. The vaccines, while initially effective wane after time. Vaccinated people are having breakthrough cases. Many like myself were vaccinated back in March. Over 7 months later I don’t really know the level of protection that is left. The boosters have just been approved for my vaccine, but there may currently be a lapse in protection due to potentially reduced or expired efficacy. I recently heard a doctor that was vaccinated 5 months ago and he wanted to check his current levels of antibodies. They were undetectable.
It’s good to have a back up regimen to the vaccine, IMO. Try to cover as many bases as you can sort to speak. If the vaccine doesn’t do the job on the virus for someone, thats ok because they’re protecting themselves with a regimen of zinc, vitamin D, C,querceton if they can’t get the ivermectin or hydroxychlorquine.

 

[ATeam]

It may be so what to you. You already had the virus. Move along then. To others though it may be a good deal or even a big deal that doctors are looking at other supplements they may benefit people who haven’t had the virus. The vaccines, while initially effective wane after time. Vaccinated people are having breakthrough cases. Many like myself were vaccinated back in March. Over 7 months later I don’t really know the level of protection that is left. The boosters have just been approved for my vaccine, but there may currently be a lapse in protection due to potentially reduced or expired efficacy. I recently heard a doctor that was vaccinated 5 months ago and he wanted to check his current levels of antibodies. They were undetectable.
It’s good to have a back up regimen to the vaccine, IMO. Try to cover as many bases as you can sort to speak. If the vaccine doesn’t do the job on the virus for someone, thats ok because they’re protecting themselves with a regimen of zinc, vitamin D, C,querceton if they can’t get the ivermectin or hydroxychlorquine.

Well, since you put it that way, why use just one backup regimen? Since we're covering as many bases as we can, lets run several regimens. Penicillin is a long-used drug that is not harmful. Maybe we should combine a shot of two of that with a anti-malaria injection (also approved for human use for decades) at the same time, followed by a full week of saturation doses of zinc and vitamin D (available over the counter and not tainted by Big Farma so it has to be good, right?). Some doctors have talked about these things in various combinations as possibly helpful. If some doctors are talking about these things, what can go wrong? Sure, some people are ending up in poison control centers because of what they hear and then do to themselves. But that's OK because they're simply trying to cover all the bases.

BTW, I have it on good authority from a fierce Trump supporter in Wisconsin that farmers, who are known to have common sense, have for generations been using animal medications on themselves for good effect. Knowing that, should we not fund free horse medicine for all humans who want it? What better way is there to fight COIVID-19 than that? What better way is there to show Big Pharma that this is America and we'll not be told what to do?

Or maybe we can let the experts do their jobs, and let the checks and balances established by the academic and scientific communities function as designed, and let the government-established advisory committees and agencies continue to do what they have been doing. Which, by the way includes developing vaccines and treatments that have saved millions of lives, and which can be expected to do more of the same as more is learned and their processes are allowed to work.

 

[muttly]

Well, since you put it that way, why use just one backup regimen? Since we're covering as many bases as we can, lets run several regimens. Penicillin is a long-used drug that is not harmful. Maybe we should combine a shot of two of that with a anti-malaria injection (also approved for human use for decades) at the same time, followed by a full week of saturation doses of zinc and vitamin D (available over the counter and not tainted by Big Farma so it has to be good, right?). Some doctors have talked about these things in various combinations as possibly helpful. If some doctors are talking about these things, what can go wrong? Sure, some people are ending up in poison control centers because of what they hear and then do to themselves. But that's OK because they're simply trying to cover all the bases.

BTW, I have it on good authority from a fierce Trump supporter in Wisconsin that farmers, who are known to have common sense, have for generations been using animal medications on themselves for good effect. Knowing that, should we not fund free horse medicine for all humans who want it? What better way is there to fight COIVID-19 than that? What better way is there to show Big Pharma that this is America and we'll not be told what to do?

Or maybe we can let the experts do their jobs, and let the checks and balances established by the academic and scientific communities function as designed, and let the government-established advisory committees and agencies continue to do what they have been doing. Which, by the way includes developing vaccines and treatments that have saved millions of lives, and which can be expected to do more of the same as more is learned and their processes are allowed to work.

Better yet, let’s just use barbell gym logic and give vaccination shots once a week to people. No more leaky vaccines.

 

[Turtle]

Penicillin is a long-used drug that is not harmful.

And as with all other antibiotics, has no effect on viruses. Even under the guise of rank sarcasm, that's breathtaking. Even using the 'cover all the bases' metaphor, you don't cover bases with players who have no glove, and no arms and no legs. The bases aren't being covered by the silliness of throwing anything and everything up against the wall to see that sticks, the bases are being covered with some thought and effort behind the potential solutions.

 

[ATeam]

Better yet, let’s just use barbell gym logic and give vaccination shots once a week to people. No more leaky vaccines.

That's not a regimen I would prescribe for COVID-19, but I think the case can be made that it would be at least as effective as some of the solutions you seem keen on.

 

[ATeam]

Forgive my sarcasm above. It's just that I get frustrated by the misinformation and what sometimes seems to be intentional ignorance demonstrated on social media and in face to face conversations I have with various people.

As with cancer, heart disease, AIDS, the flu and other illnesses, there is no quick fix to COVID-19. There is no miracle cure. There are well-established processes run by government, scientific, academic and business entities, often in cooperation with each other, that try to address these difficult challenges. These processes are responsible for the advancement of medicine and science that benefit us today; such that U.S. life expectancy has increased by 10 years in my lifetime.

Public health people talk about the obesity epidemic. Obesity is known to shorten life expectancy. Yet U.S. life expectancy has increased by 10 years in my lifetime. This isn't because more people have obesity. It's because science and healthcare have advanced.

It has been said "by their fruits you shall know them." The experts and processes that have produced these advances are known by these fruits. I respect them. I trust them. I literally trust them with my life as I cue up for the vaccines they recommend, take the medicine they prescribe, and undergo the medical procedures they perform.

Below is a link that describes the process by which a new vaccine is developed and approved. I don't know how to do even a single step in this process. Instead, I rely on the experts that do, and I'm am grateful that I have this option.

Without them, I would not have the medicines I take to make my life easier. Without them, I would be totally unprotected and totally helpless to deal with COVID-19 and any other new and potentially viruses that may come along.

Yes, experts often disagree with each other about certain facts and research methods. That disagreement is not a reason to reject expertise because of the disagreement. The disagreement itself is part of the process that produces good results.

Yes, it is common for a certain aspect of a scientific inquiry to become partially or fully politicized. That's unavoidable. Where you have people, you have politics. But the experts, perhaps more than any other group, try to avoid that so they can adhere to the scientific method that is known to work, and that, in the end, will be the thing that delivers a medical solution to a medical problem.

Yes, the experts sometimes contradict themselves by issuing a recommendation only to change it when additional information becomes known. That too is part of the process which is not ideal but is better than requiring them to say nothing until they are absolutely certain that what they say will never change when new information is learned.

As a layperson not educated in these topics, I'm happy to listen with an open mind as the experts debate (bona fide experts in their fields, not simply people with letters behind their names). I am not willing to and I am not happy with people who show little respect for the experts and seem to think that a so-called "fact" or "alternative fact" can be plucked out of the air and should be given the same credence as the fact set the experts deem relevant and true.

In my view, the experts, more than any other group of people engaged in the COVID-19 public debate, know what they are doing and know what they are talking about. I tip my hat to the experts and want them to know they have my respect and support.

Vaccine Development, Testing, and Regulation

Systems for developing and testing vaccines emerged after the 19th century, when many vaccines began to be used. The current system for developing, testing, and regulating vaccines developed during the 20th century as the groups involved standardized their procedures and regulations.

www.historyofvaccines.org

 

[coalminer]

And as with all other antibiotics, has no effect on viruses. Even under the guise of rank sarcasm, that's breathtaking. Even using the 'cover all the bases' metaphor, you don't cover bases with players who have no glove, and no arms and no legs. The bases aren't being covered by the silliness of throwing anything and everything up against the wall to see that sticks, the bases are being covered with some thought and effort behind the potential solutions.

I remember reading somewhere that they gave antibiotics as a preventative thing so that while you body was fighting covid a bacterial infection didnt sneak its way in. Im not sure for a person with a normal immune system that is necessary, but for someone who has a compromised immune system, that might be needed.

 

[muttly]

That's not a regimen I would prescribe for COVID-19, but I think the case can be made that it would be at least as effective as some of the solutions you seem keen on.

It would be a weak case because I’m not aware of any doctor recommending a weekly virus shot. There may be some issues with that.
The vitamins I listed all should be taken in dosages within safe limits.
Many doctors are recommending it too, maybe not the doctors that you “trust”.
Although one of them was involved with developing the mRNA technology.
I don’t necessarily regard it as a solution. A solution would be a cure.
I view the supplementation as a piece of the puzzle because the vaccines don’t work at 100 percent. Actually statistically they claim it works at an impressive about 95 percent when fully vaccinated. That’s a great initial number. No dispute from me.
But that number declines as the months go by so it isn’t 95 percent anymore. It becomes much less.
There is nothing wrong with looking at other measures that may help somewhat to bridge the gap as much as possible.
Querceten is an inflammatory supplement correct? Is it good or bad to have a lot of inflammation in your body?
Vitamins C,D, as well as the mineral Zinc. Do they have a positive or negative effect generally on a person’s immune system?
The same with excercise, a proper diet, adequate rest. All play a role.
It is narrow minded to think that since I’m vaccinated that “I’m covered”.
Too many breakthrough cases showing up. The initial robust vaccine fizzles out as time passes by.

 

[coalminer]

Reddit - Dive into anything

www.reddit.com

I forgot about him dying of Covid.


Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums

 

[Turtle]

The problem is where you get your information from experts and how much credence you give the experts. Scientific disagreements among experts has been going on since the scientific method was first invented. Scientists will lie and cheat and fudge data for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which is funding and credit (ego).

It used to be you could have great confidence in what the FDA and CDC put out there. Those days are long gone. It used to be the FDA was 100% taxpayer-funded, when it was created in 1938 after it was found food and drugs were being developed and produced in unsafe and unsanitary conditions. Their only agenda was safe foods, medicines, and cosmetics, and they weren't easily corruptible. An FDA driven by the data – and not corporate pressure. But that changed with the AIDS epidemic and the mad rush to get new drugs approved when Congress created new legislation, signed into law by Bush senior, that dramatically changed the way the FDA is funded.

The FDA has moved from an entirely taxpayer-funded entity to one increasingly funded by user fees paid by the very manufacturers that are being regulated. I think the current FDA budget is 45% funded by the drug industry, with the other 55% being taxpayer funds (with nearly all of that 55% for food and cosmetics, with the drug companies funding nearly 100% of the funds used to regulate the drug companies). Some years the drug portion of the FDA budget has been as high as 55%. That opens the door for corruption and allows the FDA to be something other than purely data-driven. It's why I personally have little confidence in new medications into they've been on the market for at least 5 years. At that point, after what has become essentially "public trials," we have reliable data. Phen Phen is a good example of that, where proper and honest clinical trial data submitted to the FDA would have shown that, yeah, it's effective at weight loss, but, oh, by the way, it also dissolves your heart valves.

The CDC, especially since COVID, but even before that, has allowed itself to become political, driven more by politics than data. Their job is disease control and prevention, not, for example, gun control or recommendations on treatments based on diversity rather than medical data. But since COVID the CDC has lost most of its credibility. Even my doctor, who is a hard-core anti-Fox News fan and ardent liberal, said the CDC has become a joke. Said disease control and prevention cannot become political, but they have allowed that to happen.

The CDC, Fauci, the Surgeon General, and many other "experts" said masks don't work, except in hospitals or other healthcare settings. They even went as far as to say that wearing a mask increases your chances of acquiring the virus. But that was a lie they eventually admitted to. A few years ago when SARS hit, they recommended masks right out of the gate. But with COVID, also a SARS virus, they lied about masks.

More recently, the CDC announced that the data does not support a booster shot except in extreme cases for people with severe autoimmune issues. The next day Biden announced that everyone should and will get a booster shot. The next day after that the CDC did a 180 and said people should get booster shots. They didn't reverse their recommendation based on new data, they did it because it is politicized. More than a few top-level and rank-and-file CDC officials up and quit over that one, stating that decisions and recommendations must be data-driven, not political.

Since we know experts can disagree amongst each other over even the seemingly most basic of things, and especially with COVID, and we know that news outlets are hopelessly biased with whatever narrative they want to tell, it's not difficult at all for news outlets to get whatever "expert" they need to give their honest opinion that also happens to fit whatever narrative they are pushing.

It's why the term "expert" in this context has lost all meaning. When you see or hear a news story that claims "experts say," it has the same gravitas as one that states "some people say," which is none. What people? How many people? Who are these people? Are they your neighbors and colleagues in nearby cubicles? What experts? How many experts? Who are these experts? Are they the scant few experts whose opinions line up with your narratives?

So you may, or not, want to revisit your views on experts, and just how much blanket respect and support you give them.

 

[Turtle]

But that number declines as the months go by so it isn’t 95 percent anymore. It becomes much less.
Too many breakthrough cases showing up. The initial robust vaccine fizzles out as time passes by.

You want to be careful about the context of the "percent" and what it means, and to be especially careful falling into the "breakthrough cases" trap that many in the media are ignorantly telling us about.

Somebody who has been vaccinated for COVID and then months later tests positive, that's not a breakthrough case.

A breakthrough case is someone who is vaccinated and then gets the same symptoms with the same severity as someone who is not vaccinated. That's true of all vaccines. not just COVID. Breakthrough COVID cases are extremely rare.

 

[blackpup]

Just in, LOL, Always wanted to write that.

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/577117-its-time-to-check-antibodies-and-take-the-guesswork-out-of-this-pandemic.

 

[ATeam]

The problem is where you get your information from experts and how much credence you give the experts. Scientific disagreements among experts has been going on since the scientific method was first invented. Scientists will lie and cheat and fudge data for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which is funding and credit (ego).

It used to be you could have great confidence in what the FDA and CDC put out there. Those days are long gone. It used to be the FDA was 100% taxpayer-funded, when it was created in 1938 after it was found did and drugs were being developed and produced in unsafe and unsanitary conditions. Their only agenda was safe foods, medicines, and cosmetics, and they weren't easily corruptible. An FDA driven by the data – and not corporate pressure. But that changed with the AIDS epidemic and the mad rush to get new drugs approved when Congress created new legislation, signed into law by Bush senior, that dramatically changed the way the FDA is funded.

The FDA has moved from an entirely taxpayer-funded entity to one increasingly funded by user fees paid by the very manufacturers that are being regulated. I think the current FDA budget is 45% funded by the drug industry, with the other 55% being taxpayer funds (with nearly all of that 55% for food and cosmetics, with the drug companies funding nearly 100% of the funds used to regulate the drug companies). Some years the drug portion of the FDA budget has been as high as 55%. That opens the door for corruption and allows the FDA to be something other than purely data-driven. It's why I personally have little confidence in new medications into they've been on the market for at least 5 years. At that point, after what has become essentially "public trials," we have reliable data. Phen Phen is a good example of that, where proper and honest clinical trial data submitted to the FDA would have shown that, yeah, it's effective at weight loss, but, oh, by the way, it also dissolves your heart valves.

The CDC, especially since COVID, but even before that, has allowed itself to become political, driven more by politics than data. Their job is disease control and prevention, not, for example, gun control or recommendations on treatments based on diversity rather than medical data. But since COVID the CDC has lost most of its credibility. Even my doctor, who is a hard-core anti-Fox News fan and ardent liberal, said the CDC has become a joke. Said disease control and prevention cannot become political, but they have allowed that to happen.

The CDC, Fauci, the Surgeon General, and many other "experts" said masks don't work, except in hospitals or other healthcare settings. They even went as far as to say that wearing a mask increases your chances of acquiring the virus. But that was a lie they eventually admitted to. A few years ago when SARS hit, they recommended masks right out of the gate. But with COVID, also a SARS virus, they lied about masks.

More recently, the CDC announced that the data does not support a booster shot except in extreme cases for people with severe autoimmune issues. The next day Biden announced that everyone should and will get a booster shot. The next day after that the CDC did a 180 and said people should get booster shots. They didn't reverse their recommendation based on new data, they did it because it is politicized. More than a few top-level and rank-and-file CDC officials up and quit over that one, stating that decisions and recommendations must be data-driven, not political.

Since we know experts can disagree amongst each other over even the seemingly most basic of things, and especially with COVID, and we know that news outlets are hopelessly biased with whatever narrative they want to tell, it's not difficult at all for news outlets to get whatever "expert" they need to give their honest opinion that also happens to fit whatever narrative they are pushing.

It's why the term "expert" in this context has lost all meaning. When you see or hear a news story that claims "experts say," it has the same gravitas as one that states "some people say," which is none. What people? How many people? Who are these people? Are they your neighbors and colleagues in nearby cubicles? What experts? How many experts? Who are these experts? Are they the scant few experts whose opinions line up with your narratives?

So you may, or not, want to revisit your views on experts, and just how much blanket respect and support you give them.

Your points are valid and you state the challenge regarding experts exactly. Namely, "The problem is where you get your information from experts and how much credence you give the experts."

When I say "expert" and you say "expert" it's very possible we may have two completely different people in mind. At the same time, when someone who has zero background in medicine or science advises others to take horse medicine to cure COVID-19, and when medical professionals are warning people against the practice because some of those who engage in it are calling or showing up for poison control help, it's an easy decision to reject that advice, and a public service to tell him to shut up.

There is no clarity in the public debate about COVID-19, but it remains wise to at least try to distinguish between those who know what they are talking about and know what they are doing, and those who do not. And it is wiser still to be aware of one's own biases in an effort to think clearly about these matters.

 

[muttly]

Your points are valid and you state the challenge regarding experts exactly. Namely, "The problem is where you get your information from experts and how much credence you give the experts."

When I say "expert" and you say "expert" it's very possible we may have two completely different people in mind. At the same time, when someone who has zero background in medicine or science advises others to take horse medicine to cure COVID-19, and when medical professionals are warning people against the practice because some of those who engage in it are calling or showing up for poison control help, it's an easy decision to reject that advice, and a public service to tell him to shut up.

There is no clarity in the public debate about COVID-19, but it remains wise to at least try to distinguish between those who know what they are talking about and know what they are doing, and those who do not. And it is wiser still to be aware of one's own biases in an effort to think clearly about these matters.

Who or which doctor is telling someone to take horse medicine?

 

[danthewolf00]

Who or which doctor is telling someone to take horse medicine?

TV quarterback doctors......