Saturday Night Fight

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 22:06:13 +0200, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/04/2020 21:04, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 18:49:15 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/04/20 18:23, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 17:27:53 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/04/20 16:42, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 10:58:02 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/04/20 09:38, Ricky C wrote:
Seems Peter Navarro has it in for Dr. Fauci and the idea that we might want
to tread carefully before recommending experimental treatments for this
virus. In the situation room, Navarro, the trade advisor, was singing high
praise of the drug hydroxychloroquine and being rather belligerent about
pushing the drug for use on patients with COVID-19. Dr. Fauci, the director
of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, tried to
explain that this drug has been studied for many years for use with
respiratory diseases with no results. It looks good in the lab, but not in
the real world.

Navarro, who has a reputation for outbursts, did not disappoint and accused
Dr. Fauci of "opposing Trump's travel restrictions on China" which is not
only untrue (he supported Trump almost alone) but irrelevant! He got his way
as Trump soon after talked to the press and once again recommended the use of
the drug in spite of the dangerous side effects. Why is the trade advisor
trying to get in the middle of a medical issue?

Oh well. Another day, another ineffective Presidential move in the COVID-19
diaries.

I hope the drug pans out, but there is not much expectation.

One thing I read was that some have tried to get Trump to allow his advisors
to speak, but he wants to do all the talking. Trump has said the briefings
give him free airtime and good ratings. So that's what these presentations
are about for Trump, rather than a time to share information from his expert
advisors, air time on TV for promoting his reelection. CREEP

Hydroxychloroquine might have the same benefits as the
Patriot missiles did in the Gulf war.

The Patriots were ineffective as stopping scuds, but
"we're doing something was being done, so stay onside".
As in "Something must be done. This is something.
This must be done".

In other words, to give people hope, and hence a reason
to stay inside and not go marauding or rioting.

Yesterday's New York Times mocked T for sating that Hydroxychloroquine
"will be a game changer." I recall that he said it might be a game
changer.


He's done a lot more than that. Don't trust me, listen
to the man himself (if you can disentangle his barely
coherent ramblings):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTXpRNIDpy0

And at the end his medical advisor (Dr Fauci) is at the
podium and is asked a medical question about
hydroxychloroquine. Trump butts in and stops him answering.

Disgraceful.

Not trying all feasible anti-virals ASAP is disgraceful

So when are you going to emulate the two possibilities
advocated by other countries leaders, e.g...

Some leaders from Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Hindu
nationalist party have advocated cow urine or cow dung
for its "medicinal" properties.
https://www.dw.com/en/hindu-group-hosts-cow-urine-drinking-party-to-ward-off-coronavirus/a-52773262

Or the Indian prime minister from the 70s:
https://www.freepressjournal.in/cmcm/morarji-desai-the-former-indian-prime-minister-who-practiced-urine-therapy


You are being obnoxious on purpose. Dumb too.

If anything is a potential anti-viral, and is known to be reasonably
safe, it should be tried on sick people immediately, enough to have
some statistical value. At a small risk of harming a small number of
people, we have a decent chance of saving thousands (or billions?)

No.

First, the drug is known /not/ to be safe. It has a lot of
side-effects, and in particular is not recommended for people with
diabetes and heart conditions - exactly the kind of people with the
biggest risk of being in danger from Covid-19 in the first place.

So there is a definite risk that it will make at least some people
worse, not better.

Of course there's risk. But given a choice that a) might harm a few
critically ill people or b) might save a few million, what's the moral
path?

Life is risky. Optimize our chances of living.

What good would a couple years of careful clinical trials and peer
review do?

You don't need a couple of years - it is possible to rush things a bit.
Since this drug is well-known, its dosage, toxicity, side-effects, etc.,
are established.

But if you don't do controlled testing you lose all chance of getting
something better, and you lose all information about the patients and
the disease. If someone gets better, you don't know if it was because
of this drug, or something else about the patient or his/her treatment.
If someone gets worse, you don't know if it was the drug that did it, or
if it is a new strain of the virus, or anything else.


By throwing this drug at everyone, you might save a few hundred lives -
you might kill a few hundred more than would have died otherwise. But
you definitely lose the chance of knowledge that might be saving tens or
hundreds of thousands of lives later on.

It is a typical Trump solution - something that looks like it will make
him popular in the short term with a total and utter disregard for the
long term.


A very smart person said we have nothing to lose.

I don't know of any smart person saying that (unless it is qualified by
"we have nothing to lose by starting controlled tests"). I do know a
total moron who said it in contradiction to all his expert advisors.


We used to do that sort of math, trade some risk for a big payoff, in
the past.

Yes, we did. It's the logic behind blood-letting as a medical treatment
for 2000 years - "It might work, it appears to have helped some people -
some people survived after the treatment. We have nothing else to try,
so let's go for it."

Lately people are afraid to take any risk, which is itself a
huge risk. Get some sick people to volunteer. Let prisoners elect to
volunteer to test a drug in exchange for pardons.

Let grownups decide to take chances. Save some lives.


No, let the /doctors/ - the /experts/ - decide what makes sense. Then
you can actually save some lives, instead of putting the decisions in
the hands of desperate people with no understanding and even less
consideration for the bigger picture.

That's silly. The people in intensive care won't smuggle in drugs and
self-medicate. Of course medical professionals will do the trials. If
we let them, and allow volunteers to help without crushing
liabilities.

There is some precedent in the past of /experts/ being wrong. Let a
lot of people try things. A lot of valuable drugs were invented by
accident, or by trying a lot of improbable things.





--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Ricky C]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 4:34:22 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

Of course there's risk. But given a choice that a) might harm a few
critically ill people or b) might save a few million, what's the moral
path?

It could only save a few million if the virus was going to continue to spread exponentially. Larkin seems to think that can't continue. So not such a big moral problem then is it?


> Life is risky. Optimize our chances of living.

Taking drugs experimentally is not known to be a good way to do that. Doctors will decide which patients might and which might not benefit from experimental uses of drugs. Patients will receive them. Some will live and some will die. Trump will claim credit for saving lives no matter what.

That's silly. The people in intensive care won't smuggle in drugs and
self-medicate. Of course medical professionals will do the trials. If
we let them, and allow volunteers to help without crushing
liabilities.

Doctors are using drugs experimentally. It's happening. What are you whining about?

There is some precedent in the past of /experts/ being wrong. Let a
lot of people try things. A lot of valuable drugs were invented by
accident, or by trying a lot of improbable things.

There is a lot more evidence of people "trying things" with bad results. Lots more.

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[David Brown]

On 06/04/2020 22:34, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 22:06:13 +0200, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/04/2020 21:04, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 18:49:15 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/04/20 18:23, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 17:27:53 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/04/20 16:42, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 10:58:02 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/04/20 09:38, Ricky C wrote:
Seems Peter Navarro has it in for Dr. Fauci and the idea that we might want
to tread carefully before recommending experimental treatments for this
virus. In the situation room, Navarro, the trade advisor, was singing high
praise of the drug hydroxychloroquine and being rather belligerent about
pushing the drug for use on patients with COVID-19. Dr. Fauci, the director
of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, tried to
explain that this drug has been studied for many years for use with
respiratory diseases with no results. It looks good in the lab, but not in
the real world.

Navarro, who has a reputation for outbursts, did not disappoint and accused
Dr. Fauci of "opposing Trump's travel restrictions on China" which is not
only untrue (he supported Trump almost alone) but irrelevant! He got his way
as Trump soon after talked to the press and once again recommended the use of
the drug in spite of the dangerous side effects. Why is the trade advisor
trying to get in the middle of a medical issue?

Oh well. Another day, another ineffective Presidential move in the COVID-19
diaries.

I hope the drug pans out, but there is not much expectation.

One thing I read was that some have tried to get Trump to allow his advisors
to speak, but he wants to do all the talking. Trump has said the briefings
give him free airtime and good ratings. So that's what these presentations
are about for Trump, rather than a time to share information from his expert
advisors, air time on TV for promoting his reelection. CREEP

Hydroxychloroquine might have the same benefits as the
Patriot missiles did in the Gulf war.

The Patriots were ineffective as stopping scuds, but
"we're doing something was being done, so stay onside".
As in "Something must be done. This is something.
This must be done".

In other words, to give people hope, and hence a reason
to stay inside and not go marauding or rioting.

Yesterday's New York Times mocked T for sating that Hydroxychloroquine
"will be a game changer." I recall that he said it might be a game
changer.


He's done a lot more than that. Don't trust me, listen
to the man himself (if you can disentangle his barely
coherent ramblings):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTXpRNIDpy0

And at the end his medical advisor (Dr Fauci) is at the
podium and is asked a medical question about
hydroxychloroquine. Trump butts in and stops him answering.

Disgraceful.

Not trying all feasible anti-virals ASAP is disgraceful

So when are you going to emulate the two possibilities
advocated by other countries leaders, e.g...

Some leaders from Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Hindu
nationalist party have advocated cow urine or cow dung
for its "medicinal" properties.
https://www.dw.com/en/hindu-group-hosts-cow-urine-drinking-party-to-ward-off-coronavirus/a-52773262

Or the Indian prime minister from the 70s:
https://www.freepressjournal.in/cmcm/morarji-desai-the-former-indian-prime-minister-who-practiced-urine-therapy


You are being obnoxious on purpose. Dumb too.

If anything is a potential anti-viral, and is known to be reasonably
safe, it should be tried on sick people immediately, enough to have
some statistical value. At a small risk of harming a small number of
people, we have a decent chance of saving thousands (or billions?)

No.

First, the drug is known /not/ to be safe. It has a lot of
side-effects, and in particular is not recommended for people with
diabetes and heart conditions - exactly the kind of people with the
biggest risk of being in danger from Covid-19 in the first place.

So there is a definite risk that it will make at least some people
worse, not better.

Of course there's risk. But given a choice that a) might harm a few
critically ill people or b) might save a few million, what's the moral
path?

Life is risky. Optimize our chances of living.

Given the choice of a) might help a few people or b) might kill or have
long-term detrimental effects on a few million, what's the moral path?

We don't know if the drug actually helps anyone. We don't know if the
side-effects make things worse on more people. We don't know who it
would help, and who it would harm.

We do know two things. One is that "trial and error" is not an ethical
strategy for human drug testing. The other is that a shotgun approach
to giving drugs will ensure that we will continue not to know anything -
and thus miss finding treatments that are /really/ helpful.

No, let the /doctors/ - the /experts/ - decide what makes sense. Then
you can actually save some lives, instead of putting the decisions in
the hands of desperate people with no understanding and even less
consideration for the bigger picture.

That's silly. The people in intensive care won't smuggle in drugs and
self-medicate. Of course medical professionals will do the trials. If
we let them, and allow volunteers to help without crushing
liabilities.

There is some precedent in the past of /experts/ being wrong. Let a
lot of people try things. A lot of valuable drugs were invented by
accident, or by trying a lot of improbable things.

Sure, experts get things wrong sometimes. They know that. It's only
true nitwits like yourself and your idol that think themselves infallible.

But experts are going to have a much smaller chance of getting things
wrong, and a much higher chance of getting things right, than a
self-praising git whose only accurate statement was "I am not a
physician, so what do I know?". That is why they are called "experts".

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 22:59:58 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/04/20 21:34, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 22:06:13 +0200, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/04/2020 21:04, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 18:49:15 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/04/20 18:23, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 17:27:53 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/04/20 16:42, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 10:58:02 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/04/20 09:38, Ricky C wrote:
Seems Peter Navarro has it in for Dr. Fauci and the idea that we might want
to tread carefully before recommending experimental treatments for this
virus. In the situation room, Navarro, the trade advisor, was singing high
praise of the drug hydroxychloroquine and being rather belligerent about
pushing the drug for use on patients with COVID-19. Dr. Fauci, the director
of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, tried to
explain that this drug has been studied for many years for use with
respiratory diseases with no results. It looks good in the lab, but not in
the real world.

Navarro, who has a reputation for outbursts, did not disappoint and accused
Dr. Fauci of "opposing Trump's travel restrictions on China" which is not
only untrue (he supported Trump almost alone) but irrelevant! He got his way
as Trump soon after talked to the press and once again recommended the use of
the drug in spite of the dangerous side effects. Why is the trade advisor
trying to get in the middle of a medical issue?

Oh well. Another day, another ineffective Presidential move in the COVID-19
diaries.

I hope the drug pans out, but there is not much expectation.

One thing I read was that some have tried to get Trump to allow his advisors
to speak, but he wants to do all the talking. Trump has said the briefings
give him free airtime and good ratings. So that's what these presentations
are about for Trump, rather than a time to share information from his expert
advisors, air time on TV for promoting his reelection. CREEP

Hydroxychloroquine might have the same benefits as the
Patriot missiles did in the Gulf war.

The Patriots were ineffective as stopping scuds, but
"we're doing something was being done, so stay onside".
As in "Something must be done. This is something.
This must be done".

In other words, to give people hope, and hence a reason
to stay inside and not go marauding or rioting.

Yesterday's New York Times mocked T for sating that Hydroxychloroquine
"will be a game changer." I recall that he said it might be a game
changer.


He's done a lot more than that. Don't trust me, listen
to the man himself (if you can disentangle his barely
coherent ramblings):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTXpRNIDpy0

And at the end his medical advisor (Dr Fauci) is at the
podium and is asked a medical question about
hydroxychloroquine. Trump butts in and stops him answering.

Disgraceful.

Not trying all feasible anti-virals ASAP is disgraceful

So when are you going to emulate the two possibilities
advocated by other countries leaders, e.g...

Some leaders from Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Hindu
nationalist party have advocated cow urine or cow dung
for its "medicinal" properties.
https://www.dw.com/en/hindu-group-hosts-cow-urine-drinking-party-to-ward-off-coronavirus/a-52773262

Or the Indian prime minister from the 70s:
https://www.freepressjournal.in/cmcm/morarji-desai-the-former-indian-prime-minister-who-practiced-urine-therapy


You are being obnoxious on purpose. Dumb too.

If anything is a potential anti-viral, and is known to be reasonably
safe, it should be tried on sick people immediately, enough to have
some statistical value. At a small risk of harming a small number of
people, we have a decent chance of saving thousands (or billions?)

No.

First, the drug is known /not/ to be safe. It has a lot of
side-effects, and in particular is not recommended for people with
diabetes and heart conditions - exactly the kind of people with the
biggest risk of being in danger from Covid-19 in the first place.

So there is a definite risk that it will make at least some people
worse, not better.

Of course there's risk. But given a choice that a) might harm a few
critically ill people or b) might save a few million, what's the moral
path?

Life is risky. Optimize our chances of living.

Reintroduce blood letting.

High blood pressure is a known risk factor with covid,
removing sufficient blood (via letting) will reduce
the pressure.

Let's trumpet that from the pulpits and lecterns.

Please stop being stupid. It doesn't help.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 06/04/20 21:34, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 22:06:13 +0200, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/04/2020 21:04, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 18:49:15 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/04/20 18:23, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 17:27:53 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/04/20 16:42, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 10:58:02 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/04/20 09:38, Ricky C wrote:
Seems Peter Navarro has it in for Dr. Fauci and the idea that we might want
to tread carefully before recommending experimental treatments for this
virus. In the situation room, Navarro, the trade advisor, was singing high
praise of the drug hydroxychloroquine and being rather belligerent about
pushing the drug for use on patients with COVID-19. Dr. Fauci, the director
of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, tried to
explain that this drug has been studied for many years for use with
respiratory diseases with no results. It looks good in the lab, but not in
the real world.

Navarro, who has a reputation for outbursts, did not disappoint and accused
Dr. Fauci of "opposing Trump's travel restrictions on China" which is not
only untrue (he supported Trump almost alone) but irrelevant! He got his way
as Trump soon after talked to the press and once again recommended the use of
the drug in spite of the dangerous side effects. Why is the trade advisor
trying to get in the middle of a medical issue?

Oh well. Another day, another ineffective Presidential move in the COVID-19
diaries.

I hope the drug pans out, but there is not much expectation.

One thing I read was that some have tried to get Trump to allow his advisors
to speak, but he wants to do all the talking. Trump has said the briefings
give him free airtime and good ratings. So that's what these presentations
are about for Trump, rather than a time to share information from his expert
advisors, air time on TV for promoting his reelection. CREEP

Hydroxychloroquine might have the same benefits as the
Patriot missiles did in the Gulf war.

The Patriots were ineffective as stopping scuds, but
"we're doing something was being done, so stay onside".
As in "Something must be done. This is something.
This must be done".

In other words, to give people hope, and hence a reason
to stay inside and not go marauding or rioting.

Yesterday's New York Times mocked T for sating that Hydroxychloroquine
"will be a game changer." I recall that he said it might be a game
changer.


He's done a lot more than that. Don't trust me, listen
to the man himself (if you can disentangle his barely
coherent ramblings):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTXpRNIDpy0

And at the end his medical advisor (Dr Fauci) is at the
podium and is asked a medical question about
hydroxychloroquine. Trump butts in and stops him answering.

Disgraceful.

Not trying all feasible anti-virals ASAP is disgraceful

So when are you going to emulate the two possibilities
advocated by other countries leaders, e.g...

Some leaders from Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Hindu
nationalist party have advocated cow urine or cow dung
for its "medicinal" properties.
https://www.dw.com/en/hindu-group-hosts-cow-urine-drinking-party-to-ward-off-coronavirus/a-52773262

Or the Indian prime minister from the 70s:
https://www.freepressjournal.in/cmcm/morarji-desai-the-former-indian-prime-minister-who-practiced-urine-therapy


You are being obnoxious on purpose. Dumb too.

If anything is a potential anti-viral, and is known to be reasonably
safe, it should be tried on sick people immediately, enough to have
some statistical value. At a small risk of harming a small number of
people, we have a decent chance of saving thousands (or billions?)

No.

First, the drug is known /not/ to be safe. It has a lot of
side-effects, and in particular is not recommended for people with
diabetes and heart conditions - exactly the kind of people with the
biggest risk of being in danger from Covid-19 in the first place.

So there is a definite risk that it will make at least some people
worse, not better.

Of course there's risk. But given a choice that a) might harm a few
critically ill people or b) might save a few million, what's the moral
path?

Life is risky. Optimize our chances of living.

Reintroduce blood letting.

High blood pressure is a known risk factor with covid,
removing sufficient blood (via letting) will reduce
the pressure.

Let's trumpet that from the pulpits and lecterns.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 00:21:49 +0200, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/04/2020 22:34, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 22:06:13 +0200, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/04/2020 21:04, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 18:49:15 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/04/20 18:23, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 17:27:53 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/04/20 16:42, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 10:58:02 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/04/20 09:38, Ricky C wrote:
Seems Peter Navarro has it in for Dr. Fauci and the idea that we might want
to tread carefully before recommending experimental treatments for this
virus. In the situation room, Navarro, the trade advisor, was singing high
praise of the drug hydroxychloroquine and being rather belligerent about
pushing the drug for use on patients with COVID-19. Dr. Fauci, the director
of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, tried to
explain that this drug has been studied for many years for use with
respiratory diseases with no results. It looks good in the lab, but not in
the real world.

Navarro, who has a reputation for outbursts, did not disappoint and accused
Dr. Fauci of "opposing Trump's travel restrictions on China" which is not
only untrue (he supported Trump almost alone) but irrelevant! He got his way
as Trump soon after talked to the press and once again recommended the use of
the drug in spite of the dangerous side effects. Why is the trade advisor
trying to get in the middle of a medical issue?

Oh well. Another day, another ineffective Presidential move in the COVID-19
diaries.

I hope the drug pans out, but there is not much expectation.

One thing I read was that some have tried to get Trump to allow his advisors
to speak, but he wants to do all the talking. Trump has said the briefings
give him free airtime and good ratings. So that's what these presentations
are about for Trump, rather than a time to share information from his expert
advisors, air time on TV for promoting his reelection. CREEP

Hydroxychloroquine might have the same benefits as the
Patriot missiles did in the Gulf war.

The Patriots were ineffective as stopping scuds, but
"we're doing something was being done, so stay onside".
As in "Something must be done. This is something.
This must be done".

In other words, to give people hope, and hence a reason
to stay inside and not go marauding or rioting.

Yesterday's New York Times mocked T for sating that Hydroxychloroquine
"will be a game changer." I recall that he said it might be a game
changer.


He's done a lot more than that. Don't trust me, listen
to the man himself (if you can disentangle his barely
coherent ramblings):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTXpRNIDpy0

And at the end his medical advisor (Dr Fauci) is at the
podium and is asked a medical question about
hydroxychloroquine. Trump butts in and stops him answering.

Disgraceful.

Not trying all feasible anti-virals ASAP is disgraceful

So when are you going to emulate the two possibilities
advocated by other countries leaders, e.g...

Some leaders from Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Hindu
nationalist party have advocated cow urine or cow dung
for its "medicinal" properties.
https://www.dw.com/en/hindu-group-hosts-cow-urine-drinking-party-to-ward-off-coronavirus/a-52773262

Or the Indian prime minister from the 70s:
https://www.freepressjournal.in/cmcm/morarji-desai-the-former-indian-prime-minister-who-practiced-urine-therapy


You are being obnoxious on purpose. Dumb too.

If anything is a potential anti-viral, and is known to be reasonably
safe, it should be tried on sick people immediately, enough to have
some statistical value. At a small risk of harming a small number of
people, we have a decent chance of saving thousands (or billions?)

No.

First, the drug is known /not/ to be safe. It has a lot of
side-effects, and in particular is not recommended for people with
diabetes and heart conditions - exactly the kind of people with the
biggest risk of being in danger from Covid-19 in the first place.

So there is a definite risk that it will make at least some people
worse, not better.

Of course there's risk. But given a choice that a) might harm a few
critically ill people or b) might save a few million, what's the moral
path?

Life is risky. Optimize our chances of living.

Given the choice of a) might help a few people or b) might kill or have
long-term detrimental effects on a few million, what's the moral path?

We don't know if the drug actually helps anyone. We don't know if the
side-effects make things worse on more people. We don't know who it
would help, and who it would harm.

We do know two things. One is that "trial and error" is not an ethical
strategy for human drug testing. The other is that a shotgun approach
to giving drugs will ensure that we will continue not to know anything -
and thus miss finding treatments that are /really/ helpful.

"Shotgun" is a technique widely used in DNA sequencing. It's analogous
to performing many drug tests. Some great drugs have been developed by
testing hundreds of improbable candidates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotgun_sequencing

The general idea is to try a lot of different things in parallel, even
if experts doubt that any one of them is useful. Analyze out after you
have a lot of data. The bigger premise is that experts don't always
know everything.

No, let the /doctors/ - the /experts/ - decide what makes sense. Then
you can actually save some lives, instead of putting the decisions in
the hands of desperate people with no understanding and even less
consideration for the bigger picture.

That's silly. The people in intensive care won't smuggle in drugs and
self-medicate. Of course medical professionals will do the trials. If
we let them, and allow volunteers to help without crushing
liabilities.

There is some precedent in the past of /experts/ being wrong. Let a
lot of people try things. A lot of valuable drugs were invented by
accident, or by trying a lot of improbable things.


Sure, experts get things wrong sometimes.

In some areas, most of the time.

> They know that.

Ha! The establishment is usually so confident of the concensus that
they punish "denialists."

It's only
>true nitwits like yourself and your idol that think themselves infallible.

My point here is exactly that nobody knows everything, so try things
and be prepared to be proven wrong.

But experts are going to have a much smaller chance of getting things
wrong, and a much higher chance of getting things right, than a
self-praising git whose only accurate statement was "I am not a
physician, so what do I know?". That is why they are called "experts".

Some day we'll understand cell chemistry and kill cancers and viruses
at will. Not yet.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Ricky C]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 6:00:03 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 06/04/20 21:34, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 22:06:13 +0200, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/04/2020 21:04, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 18:49:15 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/04/20 18:23, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 17:27:53 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/04/20 16:42, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 10:58:02 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/04/20 09:38, Ricky C wrote:
Seems Peter Navarro has it in for Dr. Fauci and the idea that we might want
to tread carefully before recommending experimental treatments for this
virus. In the situation room, Navarro, the trade advisor, was singing high
praise of the drug hydroxychloroquine and being rather belligerent about
pushing the drug for use on patients with COVID-19. Dr. Fauci, the director
of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, tried to
explain that this drug has been studied for many years for use with
respiratory diseases with no results. It looks good in the lab, but not in
the real world.

Navarro, who has a reputation for outbursts, did not disappoint and accused
Dr. Fauci of "opposing Trump's travel restrictions on China" which is not
only untrue (he supported Trump almost alone) but irrelevant! He got his way
as Trump soon after talked to the press and once again recommended the use of
the drug in spite of the dangerous side effects. Why is the trade advisor
trying to get in the middle of a medical issue?

Oh well. Another day, another ineffective Presidential move in the COVID-19
diaries.

I hope the drug pans out, but there is not much expectation.

One thing I read was that some have tried to get Trump to allow his advisors
to speak, but he wants to do all the talking. Trump has said the briefings
give him free airtime and good ratings. So that's what these presentations
are about for Trump, rather than a time to share information from his expert
advisors, air time on TV for promoting his reelection. CREEP

Hydroxychloroquine might have the same benefits as the
Patriot missiles did in the Gulf war.

The Patriots were ineffective as stopping scuds, but
"we're doing something was being done, so stay onside".
As in "Something must be done. This is something.
This must be done".

In other words, to give people hope, and hence a reason
to stay inside and not go marauding or rioting.

Yesterday's New York Times mocked T for sating that Hydroxychloroquine
"will be a game changer." I recall that he said it might be a game
changer.


He's done a lot more than that. Don't trust me, listen
to the man himself (if you can disentangle his barely
coherent ramblings):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTXpRNIDpy0

And at the end his medical advisor (Dr Fauci) is at the
podium and is asked a medical question about
hydroxychloroquine. Trump butts in and stops him answering.

Disgraceful.

Not trying all feasible anti-virals ASAP is disgraceful

So when are you going to emulate the two possibilities
advocated by other countries leaders, e.g...

Some leaders from Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Hindu
nationalist party have advocated cow urine or cow dung
for its "medicinal" properties.
https://www.dw.com/en/hindu-group-hosts-cow-urine-drinking-party-to-ward-off-coronavirus/a-52773262

Or the Indian prime minister from the 70s:
https://www.freepressjournal.in/cmcm/morarji-desai-the-former-indian-prime-minister-who-practiced-urine-therapy


You are being obnoxious on purpose. Dumb too.

If anything is a potential anti-viral, and is known to be reasonably
safe, it should be tried on sick people immediately, enough to have
some statistical value. At a small risk of harming a small number of
people, we have a decent chance of saving thousands (or billions?)

No.

First, the drug is known /not/ to be safe. It has a lot of
side-effects, and in particular is not recommended for people with
diabetes and heart conditions - exactly the kind of people with the
biggest risk of being in danger from Covid-19 in the first place.

So there is a definite risk that it will make at least some people
worse, not better.

Of course there's risk. But given a choice that a) might harm a few
critically ill people or b) might save a few million, what's the moral
path?

Life is risky. Optimize our chances of living.

Reintroduce blood letting.

High blood pressure is a known risk factor with covid,
removing sufficient blood (via letting) will reduce
the pressure.

Let's trumpet that from the pulpits and lecterns.

Yes, removing sufficient blood will result in and end to all diseases. Just not a desirable end.

I have heard from many, many sources that Kegel exercises will help with the symptoms of COVID-19. Why not try it in the ICU? Not much to lose.

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 2020-04-06 15:10, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 06/04/20 19:54, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 10:22:19 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 12:27:58 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 06/04/20 16:42, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 10:58:02 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/04/20 09:38, Ricky C wrote:
Seems Peter Navarro has it in for Dr. Fauci and the idea that we
might want
to tread carefully before recommending experimental treatments
for this
virus.  In the situation room, Navarro, the trade advisor, was
singing high
praise of the drug hydroxychloroquine and being rather
belligerent about
pushing the drug for use on patients with COVID-19.  Dr. Fauci,
the director
of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases,
tried to
explain that this drug has been studied for many years for use with
respiratory diseases with no results.  It looks good in the lab,
but not in
the real world.

Navarro, who has a reputation for outbursts, did not disappoint
and accused
Dr. Fauci of "opposing Trump's travel restrictions on China"
which is not
only untrue (he supported Trump almost alone) but irrelevant!  He
got his way
as Trump soon after talked to the press and once again
recommended the use of
the drug in spite of the dangerous side effects.  Why is the
trade advisor
trying to get in the middle of a medical issue?

Oh well.  Another day, another ineffective Presidential move in
the COVID-19
diaries.

I hope the drug pans out, but there is not much expectation.

One thing I read was that some have tried to get Trump to allow
his advisors
to speak, but he wants to do all the talking.  Trump has said the
briefings
give him free airtime and good ratings.  So that's what these
presentations
are about for Trump, rather than a time to share information from
his expert
advisors, air time on TV for promoting his reelection.  CREEP

Hydroxychloroquine might have the same benefits as the
Patriot missiles did in the Gulf war.

The Patriots were ineffective as stopping scuds, but
"we're doing something was being done, so stay onside".
As in "Something must be done. This is something.
This must be done".

In other words, to give people hope, and hence a reason
to stay inside and not go marauding or rioting.

Yesterday's New York Times mocked T for sating that Hydroxychloroquine
"will be a game changer." I recall that he said it might be a game
changer.


He's done a lot more than that. Don't trust me, listen
to the man himself (if you can disentangle his barely
coherent ramblings):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTXpRNIDpy0

And at the end his medical advisor (Dr Fauci) is at the
podium and is asked a medical question about
hydroxychloroquine. Trump butts in and stops him answering.

Disgraceful.

It's not disgraceful, the president was absolutely correct -- the
question has been asked and Dr. Fauci has answered it over, and
over, and over.  It's petty, we're all sick of it, and it's
wasting everyone's time.

The president's mortal sin was highlighting a possible treatment.
We also announced, Jan. 20th, that NIH was already working
on a Coronavirus vaccine. And, the first U.S. patient was treated
with an anti-viral, remdesivir, expedited trials of which are
on-going.

Rather than deliver useful information to the American public all
the press can do is try to play a childish, vicious game of 'gotcha,'
rather than jump on board and try to suggest, discover, root out,
and otherwise look for other possibly life-saving treatments.

Proving the Orange Man is Bad is more important to them than doing
their actual job (informing the public), or, heaven forfend, helping.

That's the disgraceful thing.

They're petty, mean-spirited, small-minded, nasty little
virtue-signalers, not particularly bright.

Cheers,
James Arthur


DT said "stop being a bunch of helpless sissies" and a lot of people
don't want to.

Boris Johnson took the same attitude, and look where he is now.

And look at how sympathetic you are.

We're all in this together. Some are contributing, others just throw
rocks and complain.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

 

[Ricky C]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 6:47:38 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

"Shotgun" is a technique widely used in DNA sequencing. It's analogous
to performing many drug tests. Some great drugs have been developed by
testing hundreds of improbable candidates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotgun_sequencing

The general idea is to try a lot of different things in parallel, even
if experts doubt that any one of them is useful. Analyze out after you
have a lot of data. The bigger premise is that experts don't always
know everything.

The display of ignorance is one thing... everyone is ignorant of something. But the complete inability to think or to do any studying on a topic is amazing.

Medicine is not like electronics design. You can do all the simulations you want and you won't hurt anyone. Giving a mixture of medicines to a critically ill patient is insane and is almost certain to interact to cause harm if not death.

You have to be a very, very poor thinker to not understand that nearly all medicines have side effects, not uncommonly very serious side effects and side effects that can be amplified when used in combination.

I know a lady who took a an over the counter cold medication with another medicine and the 10% alcohol, 3 ml, caused her death.

My point here is exactly that nobody knows everything, so try things
and be prepared to be proven wrong.

That's what researchers do. They try things under controlled and measured conditions so they have a clear understanding of the results.

Some day we'll understand cell chemistry and kill cancers and viruses
at will. Not yet.

We have a vast understanding of cellular chemistry. There's a whole field of study about it called Biochemistry.

We can treat and cure a number of cancers.

We can treat and cure a number of viruses.

We can't do much for willful ignorance.

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Ricky C]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 6:37:41 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

Please stop being stupid. It doesn't help.

Physician heal thyself!

Oh God! If only...

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 22:23:53 +0200, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/04/2020 22:09, John Larkin wrote:

Some medical types will be hyper-cautious, and some will try to see if
things work. The feds should let multiple people experiment with
volunteers. Now.

You really are clueless, aren't you? You think Trump is your anointed
saviour who can brush aside the evils of rules and regulation with a
sweep of his tiny little godlike hands.

He's our elected President, the CEO of the USA. He has a lot of power
over agencies. He *can* brush aside regulations.

Doctors and medical researchers could already use drugs like
hydroxychloroquine in proper, controlled trials. They are already doing
so in other countries - /real/ trials.

The lets do some here too. Might help.

What they can't do - and don't want to do, and are not allowed to do
regardless of any trumpeting - is prescribe a drug as a cure for a
disease when no one has any idea if it works or not.

We won't know if we don't try.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[Ricky C]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 8:33:36 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2020-04-06 15:10, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 06/04/20 19:54, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 10:22:19 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 12:27:58 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 06/04/20 16:42, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 10:58:02 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/04/20 09:38, Ricky C wrote:
Seems Peter Navarro has it in for Dr. Fauci and the idea that we
might want
to tread carefully before recommending experimental treatments
for this
virus.  In the situation room, Navarro, the trade advisor, was
singing high
praise of the drug hydroxychloroquine and being rather
belligerent about
pushing the drug for use on patients with COVID-19.  Dr. Fauci,
the director
of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases,
tried to
explain that this drug has been studied for many years for use with
respiratory diseases with no results.  It looks good in the lab,
but not in
the real world.

Navarro, who has a reputation for outbursts, did not disappoint
and accused
Dr. Fauci of "opposing Trump's travel restrictions on China"
which is not
only untrue (he supported Trump almost alone) but irrelevant!  He
got his way
as Trump soon after talked to the press and once again
recommended the use of
the drug in spite of the dangerous side effects.  Why is the
trade advisor
trying to get in the middle of a medical issue?

Oh well.  Another day, another ineffective Presidential move in
the COVID-19
diaries.

I hope the drug pans out, but there is not much expectation.

One thing I read was that some have tried to get Trump to allow
his advisors
to speak, but he wants to do all the talking.  Trump has said the
briefings
give him free airtime and good ratings.  So that's what these
presentations
are about for Trump, rather than a time to share information from
his expert
advisors, air time on TV for promoting his reelection.  CREEP

Hydroxychloroquine might have the same benefits as the
Patriot missiles did in the Gulf war.

The Patriots were ineffective as stopping scuds, but
"we're doing something was being done, so stay onside".
As in "Something must be done. This is something.
This must be done".

In other words, to give people hope, and hence a reason
to stay inside and not go marauding or rioting.

Yesterday's New York Times mocked T for sating that Hydroxychloroquine
"will be a game changer." I recall that he said it might be a game
changer.


He's done a lot more than that. Don't trust me, listen
to the man himself (if you can disentangle his barely
coherent ramblings):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTXpRNIDpy0

And at the end his medical advisor (Dr Fauci) is at the
podium and is asked a medical question about
hydroxychloroquine. Trump butts in and stops him answering.

Disgraceful.

It's not disgraceful, the president was absolutely correct -- the
question has been asked and Dr. Fauci has answered it over, and
over, and over.  It's petty, we're all sick of it, and it's
wasting everyone's time.

The president's mortal sin was highlighting a possible treatment.
We also announced, Jan. 20th, that NIH was already working
on a Coronavirus vaccine. And, the first U.S. patient was treated
with an anti-viral, remdesivir, expedited trials of which are
on-going.

Rather than deliver useful information to the American public all
the press can do is try to play a childish, vicious game of 'gotcha,'
rather than jump on board and try to suggest, discover, root out,
and otherwise look for other possibly life-saving treatments.

Proving the Orange Man is Bad is more important to them than doing
their actual job (informing the public), or, heaven forfend, helping.

That's the disgraceful thing.

They're petty, mean-spirited, small-minded, nasty little
virtue-signalers, not particularly bright.

Cheers,
James Arthur


DT said "stop being a bunch of helpless sissies" and a lot of people
don't want to.

Boris Johnson took the same attitude, and look where he is now.


And look at how sympathetic you are.

We're all in this together. Some are contributing, others just throw
rocks and complain.

Lol, pot v. kettle.

Sometimes you really are an imbecile. Good thing you are good at electronics or you might starve.

If the victim had been someone you didn't care for you would likely be referring to the Darwin award. I don't want the man to suffer, but how much sympathy can you give someone who willfully ignored... no, blatantly ignored all the advice virtually every doctor in the world was giving about social distancing?

You can bet no one gets near Trump until they've been tested and verified clean. Unfortunately that's still not enough to be 100% sure of not catching this disease. I think that's why everyone's so afraid of it. It kills and there is no way to be 100% sure of not catching it. Yeah, scary stuff really.

--

Rick C.

--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 4:54:10 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 10:22:19 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 12:27:58 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 06/04/20 16:42, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 10:58:02 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/04/20 09:38, Ricky C wrote:

<snip>

Proving the Orange Man is Bad is more important to them than doing
their actual job (informing the public), or, heaven forfend, helping.

And should quite unnecessary. The rapidly rising numbers of Covid-19 infections and deaths in the US is all that is necessary to demonstrate the Orange Man is bad - or a least insufficiently competent.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

says that Trump's apporval rating is up to 45.3% so the press hasn't done their job right yet.

That's the disgraceful thing.

They're petty, mean-spirited, small-minded, nasty little
virtue-signalers, not particularly bright.

DT said "stop being a bunch of helpless sissies" and a lot of people
don't want to.

Getting rid of an administration that has failed to learn and apply the lessons spelled out by China and South Korea is what needs to be done.

James Arthur is going to be unsympathetic to that idea, because he feels that the US government should concentrate on letting him hang on to the money he has got, as opposed to stopping people getting killed by an infectious disease.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 5:04:16 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 18:49:15 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/04/20 18:23, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 17:27:53 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/04/20 16:42, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 10:58:02 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/04/20 09:38, Ricky C wrote:

<snip>

Not trying all feasible anti-virals ASAP is disgraceful

So when are you going to emulate the two possibilities
advocated by other countries leaders, e.g...

Some leaders from Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Hindu
nationalist party have advocated cow urine or cow dung
for its "medicinal" properties.
https://www.dw.com/en/hindu-group-hosts-cow-urine-drinking-party-to-ward-off-coronavirus/a-52773262

Or the Indian prime minister from the 70s:
https://www.freepressjournal.in/cmcm/morarji-desai-the-former-indian-prime-minister-who-practiced-urine-therapy

You are being obnoxious on purpose. Dumb too.

The obnoxiousness is appropriate. The dumbness is all yours.

If anything is a potential anti-viral, and is known to be reasonably
safe, it should be tried on sick people immediately, enough to have
some statistical value. At a small risk of harming a small number of
people, we have a decent chance of saving thousands (or billions?)

What good would a couple years of careful clinical trials and peer
review do?

A very smart person said we have nothing to lose.

Everybody who gets killed by an treatment that made them worse has lost everything. Very smart people do keep that in mind.

We used to do that sort of math, trade some risk for a big payoff, in
the past. Lately people are afraid to take any risk, which is itself a
huge risk. Get some sick people to volunteer. Let prisoners elect to
volunteer to test a drug in exchange for pardons.

Let grownups decide to take chances. Save some lives.

And risk quite a few in the process. Stopping people get infected in the first place is a much safer approach. South Korea could manage that. and the US has made a total mess of it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 06/04/20 23:37, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 22:59:58 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/04/20 21:34, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 22:06:13 +0200, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/04/2020 21:04, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 18:49:15 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/04/20 18:23, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 17:27:53 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/04/20 16:42, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 10:58:02 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/04/20 09:38, Ricky C wrote:
Seems Peter Navarro has it in for Dr. Fauci and the idea that we might want
to tread carefully before recommending experimental treatments for this
virus. In the situation room, Navarro, the trade advisor, was singing high
praise of the drug hydroxychloroquine and being rather belligerent about
pushing the drug for use on patients with COVID-19. Dr. Fauci, the director
of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, tried to
explain that this drug has been studied for many years for use with
respiratory diseases with no results. It looks good in the lab, but not in
the real world.

Navarro, who has a reputation for outbursts, did not disappoint and accused
Dr. Fauci of "opposing Trump's travel restrictions on China" which is not
only untrue (he supported Trump almost alone) but irrelevant! He got his way
as Trump soon after talked to the press and once again recommended the use of
the drug in spite of the dangerous side effects. Why is the trade advisor
trying to get in the middle of a medical issue?

Oh well. Another day, another ineffective Presidential move in the COVID-19
diaries.

I hope the drug pans out, but there is not much expectation.

One thing I read was that some have tried to get Trump to allow his advisors
to speak, but he wants to do all the talking. Trump has said the briefings
give him free airtime and good ratings. So that's what these presentations
are about for Trump, rather than a time to share information from his expert
advisors, air time on TV for promoting his reelection. CREEP

Hydroxychloroquine might have the same benefits as the
Patriot missiles did in the Gulf war.

The Patriots were ineffective as stopping scuds, but
"we're doing something was being done, so stay onside".
As in "Something must be done. This is something.
This must be done".

In other words, to give people hope, and hence a reason
to stay inside and not go marauding or rioting.

Yesterday's New York Times mocked T for sating that Hydroxychloroquine
"will be a game changer." I recall that he said it might be a game
changer.


He's done a lot more than that. Don't trust me, listen
to the man himself (if you can disentangle his barely
coherent ramblings):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTXpRNIDpy0

And at the end his medical advisor (Dr Fauci) is at the
podium and is asked a medical question about
hydroxychloroquine. Trump butts in and stops him answering.

Disgraceful.

Not trying all feasible anti-virals ASAP is disgraceful

So when are you going to emulate the two possibilities
advocated by other countries leaders, e.g...

Some leaders from Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Hindu
nationalist party have advocated cow urine or cow dung
for its "medicinal" properties.
https://www.dw.com/en/hindu-group-hosts-cow-urine-drinking-party-to-ward-off-coronavirus/a-52773262

Or the Indian prime minister from the 70s:
https://www.freepressjournal.in/cmcm/morarji-desai-the-former-indian-prime-minister-who-practiced-urine-therapy


You are being obnoxious on purpose. Dumb too.

If anything is a potential anti-viral, and is known to be reasonably
safe, it should be tried on sick people immediately, enough to have
some statistical value. At a small risk of harming a small number of
people, we have a decent chance of saving thousands (or billions?)

No.

First, the drug is known /not/ to be safe. It has a lot of
side-effects, and in particular is not recommended for people with
diabetes and heart conditions - exactly the kind of people with the
biggest risk of being in danger from Covid-19 in the first place.

So there is a definite risk that it will make at least some people
worse, not better.

Of course there's risk. But given a choice that a) might harm a few
critically ill people or b) might save a few million, what's the moral
path?

Life is risky. Optimize our chances of living.

Reintroduce blood letting.

High blood pressure is a known risk factor with covid,
removing sufficient blood (via letting) will reduce
the pressure.

Let's trumpet that from the pulpits and lecterns.


Please stop being stupid. It doesn't help.

Mirror!

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 07/04/20 03:21, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 22:23:53 +0200, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/04/2020 22:09, John Larkin wrote:

Some medical types will be hyper-cautious, and some will try to see if
things work. The feds should let multiple people experiment with
volunteers. Now.

You really are clueless, aren't you? You think Trump is your anointed
saviour who can brush aside the evils of rules and regulation with a
sweep of his tiny little godlike hands.

He's our elected President, the CEO of the USA. He has a lot of power
over agencies. He *can* brush aside regulations.


Doctors and medical researchers could already use drugs like
hydroxychloroquine in proper, controlled trials. They are already doing
so in other countries - /real/ trials.

The lets do some here too. Might help.


What they can't do - and don't want to do, and are not allowed to do
regardless of any trumpeting - is prescribe a drug as a cure for a
disease when no one has any idea if it works or not.

We won't know if we don't try.

And if people just go out and buy hydroxychloroquine without
supervision, we still won't know after they try.

You need supervised studies. Full stop. If you don't have
that then you could easily find a correlation between
the death rate and shoe size[1] or phase of the moon,
or whatever.

[1] that's probably a valid correlation, within some limits.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 07/04/20 01:33, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2020-04-06 15:10, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 06/04/20 19:54, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 10:22:19 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 12:27:58 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 06/04/20 16:42, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 10:58:02 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/04/20 09:38, Ricky C wrote:
Seems Peter Navarro has it in for Dr. Fauci and the idea that we might want
to tread carefully before recommending experimental treatments for this
virus.  In the situation room, Navarro, the trade advisor, was singing high
praise of the drug hydroxychloroquine and being rather belligerent about
pushing the drug for use on patients with COVID-19.  Dr. Fauci, the
director
of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, tried to
explain that this drug has been studied for many years for use with
respiratory diseases with no results.  It looks good in the lab, but not in
the real world.

Navarro, who has a reputation for outbursts, did not disappoint and accused
Dr. Fauci of "opposing Trump's travel restrictions on China" which is not
only untrue (he supported Trump almost alone) but irrelevant!  He got
his way
as Trump soon after talked to the press and once again recommended the
use of
the drug in spite of the dangerous side effects.  Why is the trade advisor
trying to get in the middle of a medical issue?

Oh well.  Another day, another ineffective Presidential move in the
COVID-19
diaries.

I hope the drug pans out, but there is not much expectation.

One thing I read was that some have tried to get Trump to allow his
advisors
to speak, but he wants to do all the talking.  Trump has said the briefings
give him free airtime and good ratings.  So that's what these presentations
are about for Trump, rather than a time to share information from his
expert
advisors, air time on TV for promoting his reelection.  CREEP

Hydroxychloroquine might have the same benefits as the
Patriot missiles did in the Gulf war.

The Patriots were ineffective as stopping scuds, but
"we're doing something was being done, so stay onside".
As in "Something must be done. This is something.
This must be done".

In other words, to give people hope, and hence a reason
to stay inside and not go marauding or rioting.

Yesterday's New York Times mocked T for sating that Hydroxychloroquine
"will be a game changer." I recall that he said it might be a game
changer.


He's done a lot more than that. Don't trust me, listen
to the man himself (if you can disentangle his barely
coherent ramblings):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTXpRNIDpy0

And at the end his medical advisor (Dr Fauci) is at the
podium and is asked a medical question about
hydroxychloroquine. Trump butts in and stops him answering.

Disgraceful.

It's not disgraceful, the president was absolutely correct -- the
question has been asked and Dr. Fauci has answered it over, and
over, and over.  It's petty, we're all sick of it, and it's
wasting everyone's time.

The president's mortal sin was highlighting a possible treatment.
We also announced, Jan. 20th, that NIH was already working
on a Coronavirus vaccine. And, the first U.S. patient was treated
with an anti-viral, remdesivir, expedited trials of which are
on-going.

Rather than deliver useful information to the American public all
the press can do is try to play a childish, vicious game of 'gotcha,'
rather than jump on board and try to suggest, discover, root out,
and otherwise look for other possibly life-saving treatments.

Proving the Orange Man is Bad is more important to them than doing
their actual job (informing the public), or, heaven forfend, helping.

That's the disgraceful thing.

They're petty, mean-spirited, small-minded, nasty little
virtue-signalers, not particularly bright.

Cheers,
James Arthur


DT said "stop being a bunch of helpless sissies" and a lot of people
don't want to.

Boris Johnson took the same attitude, and look where he is now.


And look at how sympathetic you are.

Er, no.

BoJo is a warning that "stopping being a helpless sissy"
is a stupid ineffective attitude.

I wouldn't wish a covid death on my worst enemy.

Having said that, BoJo's behaviour over Brexit (he
voted to leave as a tactical decision towards becoming
the next leader of his party), and in too many other
ways is pretty despicable. If this kills him it would
finally get the seriousness of the situation through
to some twats.

In that case his obituary could channel that of the thane
of Cawdor: "Nothing in his life became him like the
leaving of it".

We're all in this together.  Some are contributing, others just throw rocks and
complain.

Some people's actions /and inactions/ contributed to the
state we find ourselves in. A prime minister is in a unique
position in that respect.

IMHO it is a few years too early to make a final judgement,
but the initial evidence contains some damning elements.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 07/04/2020 08:32, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 07/04/20 01:33, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-04-06 15:10, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 06/04/20 19:54, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 10:22:19 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 12:27:58 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 06/04/20 16:42, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 10:58:02 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/04/20 09:38, Ricky C wrote:
Seems Peter Navarro has it in for Dr. Fauci and the idea that
we might want
to tread carefully before recommending experimental treatments
for this
virus.  In the situation room, Navarro, the trade advisor, was
singing high
praise of the drug hydroxychloroquine and being rather
belligerent about
pushing the drug for use on patients with COVID-19.  Dr. Fauci,
the director
of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases,
tried to
explain that this drug has been studied for many years for use
with
respiratory diseases with no results.  It looks good in the
lab, but not in
the real world.

Navarro, who has a reputation for outbursts, did not disappoint
and accused
Dr. Fauci of "opposing Trump's travel restrictions on China"
which is not
only untrue (he supported Trump almost alone) but irrelevant!
He got his way
as Trump soon after talked to the press and once again
recommended the use of
the drug in spite of the dangerous side effects.  Why is the
trade advisor
trying to get in the middle of a medical issue?

Oh well.  Another day, another ineffective Presidential move in
the COVID-19
diaries.

I hope the drug pans out, but there is not much expectation.

One thing I read was that some have tried to get Trump to allow
his advisors
to speak, but he wants to do all the talking.  Trump has said
the briefings
give him free airtime and good ratings.  So that's what these
presentations
are about for Trump, rather than a time to share information
from his expert
advisors, air time on TV for promoting his reelection.  CREEP

Hydroxychloroquine might have the same benefits as the
Patriot missiles did in the Gulf war.

The Patriots were ineffective as stopping scuds, but
"we're doing something was being done, so stay onside".
As in "Something must be done. This is something.
This must be done".

In other words, to give people hope, and hence a reason
to stay inside and not go marauding or rioting.

Yesterday's New York Times mocked T for sating that
Hydroxychloroquine
"will be a game changer." I recall that he said it might be a game
changer.


He's done a lot more than that. Don't trust me, listen
to the man himself (if you can disentangle his barely
coherent ramblings):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTXpRNIDpy0

And at the end his medical advisor (Dr Fauci) is at the
podium and is asked a medical question about
hydroxychloroquine. Trump butts in and stops him answering.

Disgraceful.

It's not disgraceful, the president was absolutely correct -- the
question has been asked and Dr. Fauci has answered it over, and
over, and over.  It's petty, we're all sick of it, and it's
wasting everyone's time.

The president's mortal sin was highlighting a possible treatment.
We also announced, Jan. 20th, that NIH was already working
on a Coronavirus vaccine. And, the first U.S. patient was treated
with an anti-viral, remdesivir, expedited trials of which are
on-going.

Rather than deliver useful information to the American public all
the press can do is try to play a childish, vicious game of 'gotcha,'
rather than jump on board and try to suggest, discover, root out,
and otherwise look for other possibly life-saving treatments.

Proving the Orange Man is Bad is more important to them than doing
their actual job (informing the public), or, heaven forfend, helping.

That's the disgraceful thing.

They're petty, mean-spirited, small-minded, nasty little
virtue-signalers, not particularly bright.

Cheers,
James Arthur


DT said "stop being a bunch of helpless sissies" and a lot of people
don't want to.

Boris Johnson took the same attitude, and look where he is now.


And look at how sympathetic you are.

Er, no.

BoJo is a warning that "stopping being a helpless sissy"
is a stupid ineffective attitude.

I wouldn't wish a covid death on my worst enemy.

Having said that, BoJo's behaviour over Brexit (he
voted to leave as a tactical decision towards becoming
the next leader of his party), and in too many other
ways is pretty despicable. If this kills him it would
finally get the seriousness of the situation through
to some twats.

In that case his obituary could channel that of the thane
of Cawdor: "Nothing in his life became him like the
leaving of it".

I am no fan of Boris Johnson but I do think he has pretty much listened
to and acted upon the scientific advice he has been given by experts.
This is in itself quite impressive since he got into power using a team
that denigrated experts quite routinely in their election campaign.

We're all in this together.  Some are contributing, others just throw
rocks and complain.

Some people's actions /and inactions/ contributed to the
state we find ourselves in. A prime minister is in a unique
position in that respect.

IMHO it is a few years too early to make a final judgement,
but the initial evidence contains some damning elements.

I think you should give Boris the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Personally I think he has overreacted to the Imperial paper and applied
a national lockdown because London and Birmingham needed one. You can't
accuse him of ignoring the problem. It is sad that it has now for him
become a personal battle for his own survival against the virus.

But at least he was taking the threat seriously unlike President Trump
who denounced Covid-19 as "the sniffles" that would just go away until
things really started to turn ugly. As a result of Trumps prevarication
USA will do pandemic bigger and better than any first world country.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 1:09:54 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 20:18:10 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

[about shotgun-style testing of drugs for COVID-19]

How would you react if, when you were grossly overloaded
creating a product, a politician told you to include parts
that you've previously rejected as being a poor fit?

Some medical types will be hyper-cautious, and some will try to see if
things work

In aircraft design, you want to go with hyper-cautious types. The
'try to see if things work' folk get fired (or worse, are cited in
the subsequent suits).

Auto industry, too. Do you remember this?

<https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/10/20/gm-settles-deadly-ignition-switch-cases-120-million/777831001/>

When a plane crashes, or a car, it's not always survivable. Lungs are like that, too.

 

[David Brown]

On 07/04/2020 00:47, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 00:21:49 +0200, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/04/2020 22:34, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 22:06:13 +0200, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

Of course there's risk. But given a choice that a) might harm a few
critically ill people or b) might save a few million, what's the moral
path?

Life is risky. Optimize our chances of living.

Given the choice of a) might help a few people or b) might kill or have
long-term detrimental effects on a few million, what's the moral path?

We don't know if the drug actually helps anyone. We don't know if the
side-effects make things worse on more people. We don't know who it
would help, and who it would harm.

We do know two things. One is that "trial and error" is not an ethical
strategy for human drug testing. The other is that a shotgun approach
to giving drugs will ensure that we will continue not to know anything -
and thus miss finding treatments that are /really/ helpful.


"Shotgun" is a technique widely used in DNA sequencing. It's analogous
to performing many drug tests. Some great drugs have been developed by
testing hundreds of improbable candidates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotgun_sequencing

The general idea is to try a lot of different things in parallel, even
if experts doubt that any one of them is useful. Analyze out after you
have a lot of data. The bigger premise is that experts don't always
know everything.

Sure - but you might notice one /tiny/, almost negligible little
difference here. This "Shotgun sequencing" - and other such mass
trial-and-error experiments are done in labs, testtubes, simulators, and
the like. It doesn't matter if 99.9% of the results are failures and
are poured down the drain in the search for the useful 0.1%. Most of us
prefer a different attitude when were are talking about human lives!

No, let the /doctors/ - the /experts/ - decide what makes sense. Then
you can actually save some lives, instead of putting the decisions in
the hands of desperate people with no understanding and even less
consideration for the bigger picture.

That's silly. The people in intensive care won't smuggle in drugs and
self-medicate. Of course medical professionals will do the trials. If
we let them, and allow volunteers to help without crushing
liabilities.

There is some precedent in the past of /experts/ being wrong. Let a
lot of people try things. A lot of valuable drugs were invented by
accident, or by trying a lot of improbable things.


Sure, experts get things wrong sometimes.

In some areas, most of the time.

They know that.

Ha! The establishment is usually so confident of the concensus that
they punish "denialists."

It's only
true nitwits like yourself and your idol that think themselves infallible.

My point here is exactly that nobody knows everything, so try things
and be prepared to be proven wrong.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that giving every patient the
drug is /not/ "trying things" ? It's not a matter of being proven right
or proven wrong, it's a matter of not having the slightest clue if it is
working or not.

But experts are going to have a much smaller chance of getting things
wrong, and a much higher chance of getting things right, than a
self-praising git whose only accurate statement was "I am not a
physician, so what do I know?". That is why they are called "experts".

Some day we'll understand cell chemistry and kill cancers and viruses
at will. Not yet.