So any comments on the Stella Immanuel Video?

[katilac]

8 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

My thought was just that I would be willing to try something that has been on the market for decades even if we don't know yet how effective it is  

But we do have a pretty good idea of how effective it is, or rather isn't. It's been used on the frontlines, it's had trials. Your reasoning works for months ago, which is why they tried it to begin with, but decisions and recommendations change as we get more information. 

[Wheres Toto]

2 hours ago, Liz CA said:

 

This boils down for me to something much more basic though. All of us on this board (unless we have a credentialed epidemiologist here) do not have nearly enough knowledge of what is going on. People are googling and reading a few articles and think themselves experts on the subject. This is not just the case with CV19 but is an internet phenomenon in general. I don't care to discredit any doctors, don't know them and this is not what this is about for me.

My question is this (maybe this would be better in poll format):

If you were diagnosed with CV19 tomorrow and by next week it looked like you were not doing too well would you try something that has been on the market for a while but is usually rx'd for specific symptoms if it may help you but nobody is sure? Many people participate in clinical trials (other than CV19) and substances / combos of substances are tried to see what works. I think I would agree to take this if my immune system was not fighting it off. Nobody seems to know for sure what effect if may have, if the effects depend on other variable and are therefore individual? Point is that when people think they are dying, they are often willing to take it. 

Sure, when someone is dying and there are no proven treatments but there is something that MIGHT work, yes doctors may try it.  But we're not in that situation here anymore.   We have other treatments that appear to work better.  If we're going to do a final Hail Mary and try and save someone who has no other options, wouldn't we use something that showed some sign of working, not something that has already been shown to not work?     Even in that situation, the idea is to make an educated guess, not just throw everything at it.

IF we're talking credentials, I've worked pharmaceutical marketing and on drugs in Phase III trials (including lots of off-label use), including analysis and FDA submissions (Biology degree), Dh is in analytical pharmaceuticals mainly for generics but currently biopharma (Chemistry degree). 

[Liz CA]

2 hours ago, square_25 said:

I’m not an epidemiologist, but I’m an academic. My husband’s a mathematician who’s also affiliated with the med school here, although he’s emphatically not a doctor. I can tell you that the way people study these things is not via releasing videos or blog posts to the public. (Well, that can be a component, but those are not the official channels.)

 

I have explained what my thoughts on this are so I won't repeat it in every post and unnecessarily duplicate everything. No, of course it's not studied via blog posts - studies take a long time, publications, if credible, should be peer reviewed, etc. I am familiar with that process in my field and would hope it is as or more rigorous in the medical field.

[Moonhawk]

3 minutes ago, Dotwithaperiod said:

About 16 years ago my son joined a summer art class at a really cool, popular TX library. DS said she was very nice. One day at a homeschool park play, a mom told me about her kooky neighbor that believed alien-reptiles had infiltrated the gov’t, I realized it was the art teacher! A few weeks later she  met me after their class and told me DS was definitely an Indigo Child. I had no idea what that was, but wondered how she came to that conclusion after watching a little kid make some disastrous looking paintings.

My immediate thought was Dorry, "Yes, I'm a natural blue!"

[katilac]

3 minutes ago, Dotwithaperiod said:

  told me DS was definitely an Indigo Child 

They call them Indigo Children because X-Men was already taken 😄

[Liz CA]

6 minutes ago, katilac said:

we have nothing curative <<<  This is incorrect; there are medicines that have shown to be, thus far, more effective than hcq, and of course doctors and researchers are constantly searching for me. 

 

 

Lots of cross posting here. I replied to this in another post. Are doctors and researchers searching for you because you are you a scientist in the virology field? I suppose we have a few credentialed people on this board after all.

[Liz CA]

9 minutes ago, Where's Toto? said:

Sure, when someone is dying and there are no proven treatments but there is something that MIGHT work, yes doctors may try it.  But we're not in that situation here anymore.   We have other treatments that appear to work better.  If we're going to do a final Hail Mary and try and save someone who has no other options, wouldn't we use something that showed some sign of working, not something that has already been shown to not work?     Even in that situation, the idea is to make an educated guess, not just throw everything at it.

IF we're talking credentials, I've worked pharmaceutical marketing and on drugs in Phase III trials (including lots of off-label use), including analysis and FDA submissions (Biology degree), Dh is in analytical pharmaceuticals mainly for generics but currently biopharma (Chemistry degree). 

 

So have other treatments shown to be more consistently effective and at a higher rate? I am really asking (not snarking) because as I said already I don't have time to dive into research presently. From what I have read here, I am getting the impression that there are some studies that have shown HCQ to be effective in early stages of illness but not later stages. Are these other meds effective across the course of the illness or specifically in later stages? Are there studies existing that have examined a combo of tx like in the case of TB where they have prescribed several ABX that evidently complement each other in how they target the bacteria?

[Moonhawk]

22 minutes ago, katilac said:

we have nothing curative <<<  This is incorrect; there are medicines that have shown to be, thus far, more effective than hcq, and of course doctors and researchers are constantly searching for me. 

 

13 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

[quoted the above]

Lots of cross posting here. I replied to this in another post. Are doctors and researchers searching for you because you are you a scientist in the virology field? I suppose we have a few credentialed people on this board after all.

One, it was obviously a typo. (eta, yes I know you know)

Second, the doctors and researchers are constantly searching for me, too. But not for my credentials.........

Edited August 1, 2020 by Moonhawk

[katilac]

 

1 minute ago, Moonhawk said:

 

One, it was obviously a typo. 

Second, the doctors and researchers are constantly searching for me, too. But not for my credentials.........

Our milkshake brings all the scientists to the yard . . . 

[ktgrok]

56 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

So I realize I am actually veering off Kids Happen's OP and question since she asked specifically about this video and my thought process was going in the direction of "why is anyone caring about a handful of doctors claiming this medication works when we have have people dying and we have nothing curative to offer other than palliative care and this substance has been around for decades and appears to have relatively few concomitant symptoms?" The question for me is not really "should I trust these Frontline Doctors (I think that is what they call themselves)  but had I not recovered on my own, would I have taken this substance if offered? I think I would have. Of course, you and others may feel differently about it which is the interesting and thought-stimulating part of a good debate.

 

ok, well that's a totally different topic that has been discussed a LOT. but you were trying to say it isn't being given a second glance - that isn't true, it has been given 2nd, 3rd, and ongoing glances and is currently the most studied medication in the world! So what you were saying was untrue, and I'm guessing based on things like that video, which is what we were addressing. But if you want to know if there is evidence it works, the answer is no. And it can cause heart problems, and since Covid can also cause heart problems, there is some concern that using it in sick people could make them worse, not better. 

 

18 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

So have other treatments shown to be more consistently effective and at a higher rate? I am really asking (not snarking) because as I said already I don't have time to dive into research presently. 

Yes. 

And when people don't have time to dive into the research, that is when it is most important to rely on the opinions of credible people. Which is why this video is getting so much pushback. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

I don't have to be an epidemiologist to know the very basics of how a proper scientific study is set up.  I don't have to be an epidemiologist to know that I trust the word of epidemiologists and infectious disease doctors who really are at the top of their field in this country, if not the world, over random doctors with sketchy credentials.  I don't have to be an epidemiologist to know how to look for credible news sources instead of social media memes and propaganda videos.  I don't have to be an epidemiologist to know that an appeal to authority should actually appeal to an authority in the subject.  I don't have to be an epidemiologist to know that I should follow the advice of health departments which include epidemiologists instead of politicians. 

[Twolittleboys]

What I don't get is the focus on HCQ. Does it possibly help in some cases/in some combination etc.? Sure. But so far various studies haven't really found good proof of it (even though studies have been run and are still being performed). That doesn't mean it is possible that at some point a study will find a safe/helpful combination/use of it. But the same is true for so many other medicines/vitamins etc. It seems to be a bit of a waste to keep on trying to find the magic solution with this one remedy instead of looking further for more promising ideas (I do realize that there are of course other studies but it seems like some people would rather focus on this one). Let's say you have a large stain on your couch and try to get it out with dishwashing liquid. You try different temperatures, different amounts, different mixtures but nothing really helps (and maybe it even damages the fabric). Do you keep trying with the dishwashing liquid (it has to work somehow) or do you go on and try different approaches (regular soap, baking soda etc.)?

[Liz CA]

16 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

ok, well that's a totally different topic that has been discussed a LOT. but you were trying to say it isn't being given a second glance - that isn't true, it has been given 2nd, 3rd, and ongoing glances and is currently the most studied medication in the world! So what you were saying was untrue, and I'm guessing based on things like that video, which is what we were addressing. But if you want to know if there is evidence it works, the answer is no. And it can cause heart problems, and since Covid can also cause heart problems, there is some concern that using it in sick people could make them worse, not better. 

 

Yes. 

And when people don't have time to dive into the research, that is when it is most important to rely on the opinions of credible people. Which is why this video is getting so much pushback. 

 

However, I would have not tripped over this video had it not been mentioned here and as I had hoped to communicate, I don't rely on any one doctor or scientist because I don't think we have a definite answer yet. Lots of possibilities that should be studied so I am glad to hear there are several things in the running that appear - at this moment - to be promising.

 

[Liz CA]

46 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

Second, the doctors and researchers are constantly searching for me, too. But not for my credentials.........

 

Oh, do tell....

 

[Liz CA]

1 minute ago, Seasider too said:

By now at least my area hospital has seen enough cases and recoveries to have developed some steady treatment protocols. Rather than fight for something that’s controversial, I (personally) would trust the local physicians that have been waging this war. If they assess my case as one that needs a last-ditch-effort type of approach, I would allow something experimental if they have substantial reason to suggest it. 
 

 

 

My thoughts, exactly. And I am glad to hear that docs in your area have had success with tx protocols.

 

[Corraleno]

40 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

So have other treatments shown to be more consistently effective and at a higher rate? I am really asking (not snarking) because as I said already I don't have time to dive into research presently. From what I have read here, I am getting the impression that there are some studies that have shown HCQ to be effective in early stages of illness but not later stages. Are these other meds effective across the course of the illness or specifically in later stages? Are there studies existing that have examined a combo of tx like in the case of TB where they have prescribed several ABX that evidently complement each other in how they target the bacteria?

Remdesivir has been shown to be effective in earlier stages and dexamethasone is more effective once a patient is on supplemental oxygen. The FDA just recently issued a warning NOT to take both HCQ and Remdesivir at the same time, as it reduces the effectiveness of Remdesivir.

The only studies that claim to show benefit for HCQ if it's taken very early are observational studies, not randomized clinical trials. The RCT at the University of Minnesota did not show any benefit as a prophylactic taken after people had been potentially exposed. Studies where HCQ was given late in the disease process either showed no benefit or increased risk (e.g. the VA study in which HCQ was given to the sickest patients had a very high death rate). The most recent RCT trial, in Brazil, where HCQ was given to patients with moderate disease, showed higher levels of heart and liver problems in the HCQ group, and no improvement in symptoms.

There was a tragic story in the news recently about a young girl who died of Covid because her parents were giving her HCQ at home instead of getting proper medical help, and then once she was hospitalized they refused the recommended treatment and continued to demand she be given more HCQ. When people wonder "what's the harm" in letting videos like this promote false information, THIS is why.

[Acadie]

16 minutes ago, Twolittleboys said:

What I don't get is the focus on HCQ. 

 

I've wondered about this too, not in terms of anyone's views on this board but politically.

If it's not about clear scientific evidence is it about heavy investment in stockpiles or companies that make it, despite the fact that it's an older drug?

[Wheres Toto]

3 minutes ago, Acadie said:

 

I've wondered about this too, not in terms of anyone's views on this board but politically.

If it's not about clear scientific evidence is it about heavy investment in stockpiles or companies that make it, despite the fact that it's an older drug?

There's been some evidence that certain people who have been behind the push for HCQ bought up a large quantity of it, as well as stock in the company/companies that manufacturer it, and now it looks like they are going to get stuck with it and lose money.  

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, Liz CA said:

 

However, I would have not tripped over this video had it not been mentioned here and as I had hoped to communicate, I don't rely on any one doctor or scientist because I don't think we have a definite answer yet. Lots of possibilities that should be studied so I am glad to hear there are several things in the running that appear - at this moment - to be promising.

 

Ok, but now that you have learned that the people in the video misled the public about their credentials, have zero evidence to support their claims, were recruited by a paid political committee, and made claims that are factually not true, do you understand why people are dismissive of it? 

There are plenty of resources to learn about HCQ, pro and con. This video is not one of them. 

[Liz CA]

5 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Ok, but now that you have learned that the people in the video misled the public about their credentials, have zero evidence to support their claims, were recruited by a paid political committee, and made claims that are factually not true, do you understand why people are dismissive of it? 

There are plenty of resources to learn about HCQ, pro and con. This video is not one of them. 

 

Yes, I figured why they are dismissive of it. My attitude was more of a "shrug" because there is a lot of information on the net that has never been scientifically proven. 

[Liz CA]

55 minutes ago, Where's Toto? said:

There's been some evidence that certain people who have been behind the push for HCQ bought up a large quantity of it, as well as stock in the company/companies that manufacturer it, and now it looks like they are going to get stuck with it and lose money.  

 

And this is discouraging  - that it's either about politics or money when it should be about science and saving lives and learning more. 

[Liz CA]

Just now, square_25 said:

Sure, but I feel very negative about all of it if that starts conspiracy theories.

 

I know. Everything these days ends up in some kind of "extreme." I have to say it scares me a little that so much is polarized. Can we be moderately hopeful that something will work while acknowledging it may not? Can we be moderately confident in some of our abilities without overestimating our cleverness and remaining humble enough to remain teachable?

 

[Pen]

On 7/28/2020 at 4:12 PM, Seasider too said:

Someone remind me why there’s an issue with HCQ? As in, for what reason would anyone be holding back a medicine that actually worked?

 

Hypothesis:

It may be like PPE masks.  There were not enough, and HCW needed them with priority.

 

HCQ would be needed at prophylactic stage (along with zinc, D etc) and there is not enough for everyone to do that.  So people don’t want it wasted on stockpiling or for people who might be ok anyway, and not available for people with arthritis or lupus or needing it for malaria prevention...

 

———

 

Ivermectin, if it helps, and if not stockpiled out of availability like toilet paper, there actually may be enough of for those who can tolerate it, perhaps leaving enough available HCQ for those who would have health reasons not to take Ivermectin, but be okay with HCQ... and then possibly with quite a few people who would like to do so (and don’t have contraindications), allowed and able to take one or the other prophylactically  —perhaps especially if prioritizing HCW, teachers, etc— that could perhaps help to reduce rate of severe cases ...  (I would still want masks etc too) and let things “open” relatively more safely. 

 

Maybe.  

 

 

[Moonhawk]

11 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

I know. Everything these days ends up in some kind of "extreme." I have to say it scares me a little that so much is polarized. Can we be moderately hopeful that something will work while acknowledging it may not? Can we be moderately confident in some of our abilities without overestimating our cleverness and remaining humble enough to remain teachable?

 

I love learning something true, even at the temporary expense of my pride. I think a lot of the board is similar, which is why this is the only place I'll get into these discussions. 

Or maybe I'm just so used to being wrong, and crow is an acquired taste 😉 

[ktgrok]

38 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

Yes, I figured why they are dismissive of it. My attitude was more of a "shrug" because there is a lot of information on the net that has never been scientifically proven. 

Right...and w should mostly avoid paying attention to stuff that is not proven AND promoted by wacky people lying about their credentials. 

27 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

I know. Everything these days ends up in some kind of "extreme." I have to say it scares me a little that so much is polarized. Can we be moderately hopeful that something will work while acknowledging it may not? Can we be moderately confident in some of our abilities without overestimating our cleverness and remaining humble enough to remain teachable?

 

I think that is true of everyone on this board?

[Jean in Newcastle]

1 hour ago, Liz CA said:

 

I know. Everything these days ends up in some kind of "extreme." I have to say it scares me a little that so much is polarized. Can we be moderately hopeful that something will work while acknowledging it may not? Can we be moderately confident in some of our abilities without overestimating our cleverness and remaining humble enough to remain teachable?

 

I don't know of a single person on this board who is not hopeful that every single possibility out there will work.  But that doesn't mean that we don't follow new medical advances in treatment which includes finding out that some things don't work as well as we had hoped.  That isn't extreme.  That's reality.  And it's following the actual data that is out there. 

[wathe]

8 hours ago, Liz CA said:

 

This boils down for me to something much more basic though. All of us on this board (unless we have a credentialed epidemiologist here) do not have nearly enough knowledge of what is going on. People are googling and reading a few articles and think themselves experts on the subject. This is not just the case with CV19 but is an internet phenomenon in general. I don't care to discredit any doctors, don't know them and this is not what this is about for me.

My question is this (maybe this would be better in poll format):

If you were diagnosed with CV19 tomorrow and by next week it looked like you were not doing too well would you try something that has been on the market for a while but is usually rx'd for specific symptoms if it may help you but nobody is sure? Many people participate in clinical trials (other than CV19) and substances / combos of substances are tried to see what works. I think I would agree to take this if my immune system was not fighting it off. Nobody seems to know for sure what effect if may have, if the effects depend on other variable and are therefore individual? Point is that when people think they are dying, they are often willing to take it. 

There actually is quite a lot of expertise on this board.   Professional scientists, mathematicians, at least one practicing emergency physician, and many others with relevant advanced degrees and professional experience.  Some are reluctant to identify their specific credentials for privacy.  And MD's may not want to identify their credentials here because 1) this is a place for personal discourse, not professional discourse, 2) they  do not want to be perceived as giving professional medical advice on a public forum and 3) there tend to be a lot health and medical related threads on this board (non-covid), many of which tend to have a "doctors are idiots!" flavor to them.

[Liz CA]

30 minutes ago, wathe said:

There actually is quite a lot of expertise on this board.   Professional scientists, mathematicians, at least one practicing emergency physician, and many others with relevant advanced degrees and professional experience.  Some are reluctant to identify their specific credentials for privacy.  And MD's may not want to identify their credentials here because 1) this is a place for personal discourse, not professional discourse, 2) they  do not want to be perceived as giving professional medical advice on a public forum and 3) there tend to be a lot health and medical related threads on this board (non-covid), many of which tend to have a "doctors are idiots!" flavor to them.

 

I agree with your last sentence - and sometimes it comes across as I don't care if you went through the rigors of medical school and ensuing internships, residency and fellowships - "I know just as much as you are." It's just plain ridiculous to me. I know we have many highly educated professionals here - I was just calling into question if a person with no medical knowledge beyond Dr. Google can really judge what some data is pointing to and draw sufficiently competent conclusions to tell others what is right or wrong.

[Jean in Newcastle]

28 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

I agree with your last sentence - and sometimes it comes across as I don't care if you went through the rigors of medical school and ensuing internships, residency and fellowships - "I know just as much as you are." It's just plain ridiculous to me. I know we have many highly educated professionals here - I was just calling into question if a person with no medical knowledge beyond Dr. Google can really judge what some data is pointing to and draw sufficiently competent conclusions to tell others what is right or wrong.

But these studies come with conclusions. Made by people qualified to make these conclusions. We aren’t looking at raw data and making up our own conclusions. 

[Corraleno]

26 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

I agree with your last sentence - and sometimes it comes across as I don't care if you went through the rigors of medical school and ensuing internships, residency and fellowships - "I know just as much as you are." It's just plain ridiculous to me. I know we have many highly educated professionals here - I was just calling into question if a person with no medical knowledge beyond Dr. Google can really judge what some data is pointing to and draw sufficiently competent conclusions to tell others what is right or wrong.

But the significance of the data is explained in the conclusion of every peer-reviewed, published scientific report. And then other scientists can publish their criticisms of the data and the conclusions, so you don't have to be a virologist or epidemiologist combing through raw data on your own, you can look at the scientists' own conclusions, and look at the analysis of that data and those conclusions by other experts. You don't need any medical knowledge whatsoever to understand that randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials are the gold standard in evaluation of pharmaceuticals, and that if the randomized, placebo-control trials are ALL finding no benefit, and the only studies showing benefit are not randomized and do not have proper control groups, then perhaps the preponderance of evidence at this point in time is with the randomized clinical trials.

[matrips]

8 hours ago, square_25 said:

I don’t think there are conclusive studies about HCQ helping at any point. It’s like all of these medical papers — observational studies will wind up more promising that follow-ups. 

Some people think the trials messed up the dosage or didn’t do it early enough or with zinc. However, we don’t currently have good evidence it works. We have some flawed observational studies and some RCTs showing no effect.

Edited because the source I used had a comma in the wrong place making a number seem like 16 million instead of 1.6million.  And drat, was hoping India was on to something.  I’m putting the corrected numbers and used world health meter this time.  Thanks for the catch!

cases and death in India and US

India  1,695,988        36,511

USA    4,542,068     153,314

 

Edited August 2, 2020 by matrips

[ktgrok]

44 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

I agree with your last sentence - and sometimes it comes across as I don't care if you went through the rigors of medical school and ensuing internships, residency and fellowships - "I know just as much as you are." It's just plain ridiculous to me. I know we have many highly educated professionals here - I was just calling into question if a person with no medical knowledge beyond Dr. Google can really judge what some data is pointing to and draw sufficiently competent conclusions to tell others what is right or wrong.

Well, I have a 3 yr degree in veterinary technology, which probably means nothing, but I do know a lot of medical terminology because of that (and working in the veterinary field for 20 years). But even without that, I just read, and if I don't understand a word I google it, lol. I look at how large the study was, how they divided the different arms of the study, how they controlled for other factors, how they conducted the study, what the outcomes were, and then read the conclusion. 

14 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

But these studies come with conclusions. Made by people qualified to make these conclusions. We aren’t looking at raw data and making up our own conclusions. 

Yeah....the abstract is often no enough, those can be misleading to some extent, but the conclusions are usually very clear. 

[wathe]

1 minute ago, square_25 said:

And a much younger population, right? Singapore is also getting a very low IFR, because it's largely spreading in the migrant workers who are young and healthy. 

You'd have to compare this adjusted for age for this to make any sense at all. 

That was my first thought also.

[Corraleno]

12 minutes ago, matrips said:

True, but some of the anecdotal evidence/stories is interesting.  I saw these statistics today.  It’s not scientific or anything, just interesting. 🙂

Covid cases and death in India and the US.  

And no, the deaths are not reversed.  India has a high rate of recovery, and a low rate of deaths.

India.  16,000,000.      35,747
USA.     4,542,579.    152,870

 

I don't know where you got that case number for India — Worldometer lists ~1.75 million, not 16 million. If the 16 million cases for India is an estimate of all cases, not just confirmed cases, then you should use a similar estimate for the US, which would be more like 40-45 million cases — you can't multiply confirmed cases by 10 for India and not for US.

 

 

Edited August 2, 2020 by Corraleno

[matrips]

7 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

I don't know where you got 16 million cases for India — Worldometer lists 1,750,000. If the 16 million cases for India is an estimate of all cases, not just confirmed cases, then you should use a similar estimate for the US, which would be more like 40 million cases — you can't multiply confirmed cases by 10 for India and not for US.

Oh my!  That’s a huge difference! This is where I saw the data:  

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/coronavirus-india-surpasses-italy-to-claim-5th-position-on-global-covid-19-deaths-chart/ar-BB17p32w

[Corraleno]

2 minutes ago, matrips said:

Oh my!  That’s a huge difference! This is where I saw the data:  

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/coronavirus-india-surpasses-italy-to-claim-5th-position-on-global-covid-19-deaths-chart/ar-BB17p32w

Someone put the comma in the wrong place:

"The country has so far registered 16,38,870 instances of the coronavirus infection, with a surge of 55,000 cases just today."

That should be 1,638,870, not 16 million.

[Corraleno]

4 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Well, thank you for checking that, because I was really wondering. Shoulda checked the numbers myself, oooops. 

I do figure they probably have a lower IFR. They must, with an average age of 29! 

I also wonder if they are testing people who die at home without having been previously diagnosed. There may be a lot of deaths, especially in poor/rural areas, where people who die at home are never tested and are not included in the stats.

Edited August 2, 2020 by Corraleno

[Jean in Newcastle]

As an ordinary consumer of news, I don’t think that I have to be able to make conclusions worthy of someone with a doctorate in epidemiology or infectious diseases. I am not setting policy for even my county. I am going to have to rely on actual epidemiologists , which very fortunately in my state do have influence over policy. But I do like to be informed to the best of my ability. And I consciously try to choose the best least biased materials for information. And I try to use those basics of critical thinking that I certainly hope that I have as a classical educator. 

[catz]

23 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

I also wonder if they are testing people who die at home without having been previously diagnosed. There may be a lot of deaths, especially in poor/rural areas, where people who die at home are never tested and are not included in the stats.

This.  Having traveled to this part of the world I think there is little chance the numbers are super meaningful or accurate outside of urban centers.  

[Acadie]

33 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

I also wonder if they are testing people who die at home without having been previously diagnosed. There may be a lot of deaths, especially in poor/rural areas, where people who die at home are never tested and are not included in the stats.

 

I've never been to India, but a dear friend lived there for several years with her family, and her descriptions of the healthcare system are frightening. One of her sons had a medical emergency that required hospitalization, and she learned that you can access good healthcare if you can pay in advance. If not, you might not get inside the hospital door. It was excruciating for her to realize children were dying with the same issues her son was treated for and survived.

She loved so much about living in India but was very aware of her privilege, living inside the walls of the compound of an American corporation, and having enough income to pay for good medical care, household help, and a personal driver. Actually I think that conveys the level of privilege required to access good healthcare in India--imagine if only those who could afford chauffeurs and household help could get emergency care or surgery in the US. 

I have no doubt that mortality statistics reflect much of the same divide. If you can pay for healthcare, you're counted, and if not, you disappear without a statistical trace.

Edited August 2, 2020 by Acadie

[matrips]

39 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Someone put the comma in the wrong place:

"The country has so far registered 16,38,870 instances of the coronavirus infection, with a surge of 55,000 cases just today."

That should be 1,638,870, not 16 million.

Thanks, I missed that!  A huge difference 🙄😂

[Halftime Hope]

22 hours ago, katilac said:

Sharing a diagnosis with a pharmacist is not a violation of HIPPA because they are considered health care providers.It's not just between you and your doctor, your health plan certainly has it as well. Your state does already require a dx in some instances, because dx codes are always required for Medicare Part B prescriptions. They may also be required for certain meds that require prior authorization, and for opiods. So, this is not some crazy new Covid thing. 

I haven't ventured into Medicare-land yet, but my prescription plan never has my diagnosis codes, and we've been through several RX plans in the last 10 years.   My pharmacists are healthcare providers but they are not privy to my diagnosis or diagnoses, although they are welcome to guess and it may be obvious.   I have never signed an authorization for my doctor to share my medical information with a pharmacy;  I have to do that every time in order for a doctor to communicate with another on my healthcare team.   

Your mention of drugs which are in a restricted class or ones that require prior authorization due to step-therapy or to their status on a formulary is NOT comparable to suddenly requiring unrestricted, first line, common, generic drugs to have their use "justified" in some way.    This IS a new COVID thing.    

[Halftime Hope]

23 hours ago, katilac said:

If that's what they wanted people to talk about, that should have been the topic of their press conference. They promoted precisely what they wanted people to talk about. 

 

He was part of the press conference.  He said his particular piece, as did several others there.  They each had different topics they wanted to address; as far as I know, he is perfectly legitimate, but people hear have been stating that the whole group is a group of quack doctors.  They are not. 

[ktgrok]

1 minute ago, Halftime Hope said:

 

He was part of the press conference.  He said his particular piece, as did several others there.  They each had different topics they wanted to address; as far as I know, he is perfectly legitimate, but people hear have been stating that the whole group is a group of quack doctors.  They are not. 

I'm going to highly question the discernment and critical thinking of any doctor who willingly groups themselves with someone claiming alien DNA and demon semen are true medical issues. 

[Halftime Hope]

Just now, Ktgrok said:

I'm going to highly question the discernment and critical thinking of any doctor who willingly groups themselves with someone claiming alien DNA and demon semen are true medical issues. 

Ktgrok, have you never gone to something, been a part of something, and found out that while you are very committed to "The Thing", you find that you are very different from others who are also committed to The Thing?   Come on.  

No reasonable person can be held accountable for another's belief system, any more than Susan could be held accountable for Ken Hamm's when both of them were invited guests at a homeschool convention.  Apply your line of reasoning to her, and tell me with a straight face that you highly question her discernment and critical thinking. 

 

[katilac]

38 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

I haven't ventured into Medicare-land yet, but my prescription plan never has my diagnosis codes, and we've been through several RX plans in the last 10 years.   My pharmacists are healthcare providers but they are not privy to my diagnosis or diagnoses, although they are welcome to guess and it may be obvious.   I have never signed an authorization for my doctor to share my medical information with a pharmacy;  I have to do that every time in order for a doctor to communicate with another on my healthcare team.   

Your mention of drugs which are in a restricted class or ones that require prior authorization due to step-therapy or to their status on a formulary is NOT comparable to suddenly requiring unrestricted, first line, common, generic drugs to have their use "justified" in some way.    This IS a new COVID thing.    

Your healthcare plan or provider may work in a certain way, but that does not make sharing your diagnosis with someone on your healthcare team a HIPPA violation. If it were a HIPPA violation, they would not be able to do it for Medicare Part B, prior authorization, or other reasons. See HIPPA link in my prior post. 

I said that requiring a dx on a prescription is not some crazy new Covid thing (because you stated it was a HIPPA violation). It might be being used in a new way, I don't know enough about prescriptions and the history of various medicines to know, but requiring a dx on a prescription is not a new thing. 

 

12 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

Ktgrok, have you never gone to something, been a part of something, and found out that while you are very committed to "The Thing", you find that you are very different from others who are also committed to The Thing?   Come on.  

No reasonable person can be held accountable for another's belief system, any more than Susan could be held accountable for Ken Hamm's when both of them were invited guests at a homeschool convention.  Apply your line of reasoning to her, and tell me with a straight face that you highly question her discernment and critical thinking. 

He was not a speaker who was invited to the same conference as a speaker with different beliefs; he is a member and active participant in the same group as the other person, a group that further has the deceptive term "frontline doctors" in the name, when none of the speakers are actually on the frontlines of fighting covid. 

[Halftime Hope]

10 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Well, they have one member with very strange beliefs, one member that misrepresents her place of employment and level of expertise, and a bunch of members whose medical specialities don't seem to have anything to do with treating COVID. And their name is misleading, because they are in no way on the front lines. 

Can we PLEASE stop pretending that these doctors are a reasonable source? Come on, there are pro-HCQ studies out there, let's talk about those! I have criticisms of those studies, but at least then we can go back to talking about reality-based things. 

Maybe I'm a bit less stingey with the term than you are.  As far as I'm concerned, any doctor who is treating patients in and out of their office, patients who can very well have COVID, is a front line human being.  I consider pharmacists front liners, too.  But that's just my perspective.   

I find it sad that so many of you are hell-bent on discrediting the doctors who put a lot on the line trying to give a different perspective, because the group-think is killing people and fear is  hurting and killing people, too.  I'm interested in hearing these doctors' perspectives, and seeing what I can learn from it.  I'm interested in everything from around the world, in comparing the successes and failures of different approaches, in trying to discern what the data tells us about children and the risks and benefits of opening vs. closing schools, because the losses are so profound for most of the world's children compared to the privileged few who can be well-educated at home.   I'm interested in everything that is working to treat patients early and late, from budesonide to ivermectin to a H-A-Z cocktail, to supplements, particularly if it is cheap and plentiful because that is good for everyone.    I'm interested in case series, not just in RCT trials, because even though it's out of my power, I hate that having enough deaths to make results significant, means that many families are aching.   I'd like to learn about folk medicines that are working too, if I knew where to find that info.    I'm interested in hope, not in fear.  

 

[Halftime Hope]

3 minutes ago, katilac said:

Your healthcare plan or provider may work in a certain way, but that does not make sharing your diagnosis with someone on your healthcare team a HIPPA violation. If it were a HIPPA violation, they would not be able to do it for Medicare Part B, prior authorization, or other reasons. See HIPPA link in my prior post. 

I said that requiring a dx on a prescription is not some crazy new Covid thing (because you stated it was a HIPPA violation). It might be being used in a new way, I don't know enough about prescriptions and the history of various medicines to know, but requiring a dx on a prescription is not a new thing. 

 

He was not a speaker who was invited to the same conference as a speaker with different beliefs; he is a member and active participant in the same group as the other person, a group that further has the deceptive term "frontline doctors" in the name, when none of the speakers are actually on the frontlines of fighting covid. 

He is a speaker/doctor/presenter who was invited to come from CA (?) to speak at a day-long educational conference/workshop;  the organizers called it a "summit".   They chose to have a press-conference at mid-day.  Each of the people there had their own presentation and perspective.  Again, his being part of a group doesn't make any one of them responsible for her belief system.  Susan was an active, repeat participant in this series of homeschool conventions; she was part of a group of vendors and speakers who participated regularly.  It's ludicrous that you would think that professional association would make someone responsible for one group member's beliefs.  I mean really, how would anyone even know; how would it come up?  Every time I consider joining a professional group, must I go do a background check on every member?  That's ridiculous.   

Locally (state-wide), the state pharmacy board has been made to back down precisely because it is a HIPAA violation. 

I addressed the use of the description "front line" in another post.    

 

[katilac]

1 minute ago, Halftime Hope said:

    

Locally (state-wide), the state pharmacy board has been made to back down precisely because it is a HIPAA violation. 

Link? 

[Moonhawk]

2 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

Maybe I'm a bit less stingey with the term than you are.  As far as I'm concerned, any doctor who is treating patients in and out of their office, patients who can very well have COVID, is a front line human being.  I consider pharmacists front liners, too.  But that's just my perspective.   

I find it sad that so many of you are hell-bent on discrediting the doctors who put a lot on the line trying to give a different perspective, because the group-think is killing people and fear is  hurting and killing people, too.  I'm interested in hearing these doctors' perspectives, and seeing what I can learn from it.  I'm interested in everything from around the world, in comparing the successes and failures of different approaches, in trying to discern what the data tells us about children and the risks and benefits of opening vs. closing schools, because the losses are so profound for most of the world's children compared to the privileged few who can be well-educated at home.   I'm interested in everything that is working to treat patients early and late, from budesonide to ivermectin to a H-A-Z cocktail, to supplements, particularly if it is cheap and plentiful because that is good for everyone.    I'm interested in case series, not just in RCT trials, because even though it's out of my power, I hate that having enough deaths to make results significant, means that many families are aching.   I'd like to learn about folk medicines that are working too, if I knew where to find that info.    I'm interested in hope, not in fear.  

 

I am not hellbent in discrediting them, I am not cackling at my computer as I type, I'm not even particularly interested in them as people. But I do look at sources. Are these the best sources? Are these the most qualified people to be redirecting a nation's response? I am not convinced about what they are "putting on the line" and the type of risk/reward they are currently experiencing. 

And, are you saying that the efforts of worldwide scientists running hundreds of different studies on hundreds of different approaches is...group think?

I am not actually interested in hearing these doctors' perspectives or opinions anymore. I am, however, interested in their data. Again, where is the data? If it's real, give the data. If it's not, it's snake oil.

You seem to be holding the rest of the world to a higher standard than these 10 doctors.

I just don't see why this has become the hill of scientific thought that people want to defend. Out of everything, what has escalated these doctors, this press conference, this non-data-driven "science" into public news? What is the force behind this? What are you seeing that I am not?

What makes this group "worthy of hope", that the doctors and researchers who are spending full time jobs, long and grueling workweeks dealing with it in and out, treating and researching Covid-19 are instantly less believable than these doctors who, by your definition may be front line, but are certainly are not the most experienced in the war. What is it? 

I may agree that fear is hurting people too. Hope is the best medicine against fear. But I am not going to sell this snake oil and call it hope.