Forum Replies Created

Viewing 10 posts - 31 through 40 (of 3,217 total)
  • Author
    Posts
    • Mon, Oct 26, 2020 - 08:51am

      #6

      davefairtex

      Status Member (Offline)

      Joined: Sep 03 2008

      Posts: 2190

      count placeholder0

      yeah vit-C as placebo

    IG-

    Great points. Furthermore, Ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) is not a placebo-equivalent negative control. It is used for COVID treatment! What was the dose?

    Yeah that’s a good point.  They had to pick a COVID treatment/antioxident as placebo.  I didn’t notice that one, but its true.  The “placebo” vit-C was 500 mg/250 mg/day.

    How many ways can they make this thing show “no benefit?”  They must have worked at this overtime.

    Do any of them have a conscience?  With the Gates Foundation picking up the tab, “sociopathic creativity” seems to be working overtime.

    Mots was the one to notice the 96 hours to “enroll.”  I just adopted his observation.  It takes a village.

    I want to thank the original poster who brought this absurd study to our attention.  It may not have been his intended effect.  Sometimes that’s how these things go.  🙂

    • Mon, Oct 26, 2020 - 07:30am

      #6

      davefairtex

      Status Member (Offline)

      Joined: Sep 03 2008

      Posts: 2190

      count placeholder2

      gold priced in SPX, BTC

    Here’s a chart of gold priced in shares of SPX.  Looks pretty ugly for gold.

    It helps to note this is 1980-2000.  Things look a bit different after 2000.

    And here is gold priced in bitcoins.  Might this be the low in the ratio?  You tell me.  The contrarian in me says that gold is probably a buy here.  After all, we’re supposed to “buy low, sell high.”  Right?

    • Mon, Oct 26, 2020 - 06:50am

      #10

      davefairtex

      Status Member (Offline)

      Joined: Sep 03 2008

      Posts: 2190

      count placeholder0

      no internet

    So ao was talking about scenarios.  If there is no reliable internet, there is no bitcoin.

    He laid out a whole bunch of different scenarios.  All of them involved no internet.

    Clearly you can’t conceive of a world without internet.  If AO wants to consider this possibility – perhaps he remembers a time back before the Internet.  He’s a really old guy, apparently.  I was writing code back then – but I’m definitely not an old guy.

    Guess what?  My code still compiled and ran, at a time before everyone had realtime connectivity to everything.   Trains ran, planes flew, telephones rang – it was an amazing world back then.  We had usenet.  And netnews.  And email, using a whole lot of exclamation points.  High tech meant a telebit trailblazer 9600 baud modem.  They were the very latest thing.  It all (more or less) worked.

    I remember such a time.  I was a software engineer, at the dawn of the Internet age.

    And my code really did still compile.

    I guess what I’m saying is – you can still have global connectivity without the realtime connectivity.  And preserve most of the benefits.  Bitcoin won’t work, and neither will google search – at least not as well – but all the rest of the stuff will.  Life really would continue – modulo some small changes – even if we didn’t have instant connectivity to every spot on the globe in real time.

    And it really wouldn’t be all that different to end users.  I know, because I used to manage it, way back when.  It was part of my job to keep it running.

    It would just take a lot more caching.  🙂

    • Mon, Oct 26, 2020 - 05:53am

      #4

      davefairtex

      Status Member (Offline)

      Joined: Sep 03 2008

      Posts: 2190

      count placeholder1

      cross-posted: Gates-funded HCQ PEP trial predictably fails

    https://newsroom.uw.edu/news/hydroxychloroquine-fails-prevent-covid-19

    This was a “close contacts” PEP (Post Exposure Prophylaxis) study.  800 people.  By mail.  Trial participants enrolled within 96 hours.  Unsure when they started medication.  Medication for 14 days.

    We conducted a national, household-randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of HCQ post-exposure prophylaxis, using remote study procedures. We enrolled close contacts exposed to persons with SARS-CoV-2 infection in the past 96 hours. Participants were randomized to either HCQ (400 mg daily for three days followed by 200 mg daily for eleven days) or ascorbic acid (500 mg followed by 250 mg daily), as a placebo-equivalent control…

    As we now know, PEP must be started rapidly post-exposure.  Hours count.  The sooner the better.  We have known this for years.  Here’s what CDC has to say about HIV PEP:

    https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/pep.html

    PEP stands for post-exposure prophylaxis. It means taking antiretroviral medicines (ART) after being potentially exposed to HIV to prevent becoming infected.

    PEP must be started within 72 hours after a recent possible exposure to HIV, but the sooner you start PEP, the better. Every hour counts. If you’re prescribed PEP, you’ll need to take it once or twice daily for 28 days. PEP is effective in preventing HIV when administered correctly, but not 100%.

    Note it does NOT say that PEP should be enrolled within 72 hours, people should actually start taking the medicine within 72 hours for it to work.   You get the sense if you have an HIV exposure, its a “run, don’t walk” situation for HIV PEP.  Go to the ER now, not later.  Hours count.

    What did this trial do?  It enrolled people within 96 hours of close contact, then mailed the drugs to the participant.

    So we know from Boulware’s PEP study, that there was potential efficacy in the groups that started HCQ PEP on days 0 and 1, but not on day 2-3.  Problem is, his study was underpowered.  There just weren’t enough people in it.

    Because of this study’s surprisingly long 96+ hour window, and the mail delivery delay, and possibly due to the short 14-day treatment regime with a low 200 mg HCQ, I believe this study was designed to fail.  That – and 800 people seems underpowered to me also.  They stacked the deck against the trial.

    This shouldn’t be surprising.  This trial was funded by Gates, who is all-in on the vaccines.  He doesn’t want HCQ to work in any way shape or form, and if a trial can possibly be designed to fail, it will be one funded by Gates.

    The study is supported through the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator, an initiative launched by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome and Mastercard, with support from an array of public and philanthropic donors …

    It would be like Microsoft funding a survey on “Mac vs Windows” users, and expecting such a study to come back with a “Mac is awesome” outcome.  It would simply never happen.

    • Mon, Oct 26, 2020 - 05:35am

      #554

      davefairtex

      Status Member (Offline)

      Joined: Sep 03 2008

      Posts: 2190

      count placeholder3

      the enrolling-within-96-hours PEP trial

    I notice that they enrolled subjects within 96 hours…

    Oh good heavens.  Mots.  Yes.  I focused on the wrong thing: 96.  You focused on the right thing: enroll.  “Enrolling” within 96 hours of a close contact is a world apart from “starting medication” within 96 hours.  Given this was a “by mail” trial, that’s at least another 1-2 day delay.  When hours count, as we know.

    We conducted a national, household-randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of HCQ post-exposure prophylaxis, using remote study procedures. We enrolled close contacts exposed to persons with SARS-CoV-2 infection in the past 96 hours.

    Heh you win the “and this is how they designed it to fail” contest hands down.

    Must be all those years in Washington paying dividends once again.  This is why teams are so powerful.

    • Mon, Oct 26, 2020 - 04:04am

      #552

      davefairtex

      Status Member (Offline)

      Joined: Sep 03 2008

      Posts: 2190

      count placeholder1

      A PEP HCQ study funded by Gates

    https://newsroom.uw.edu/news/hydroxychloroquine-fails-prevent-covid-19

    This was a “close contacts” PEP (Post Exposure Prophylaxis) study.  Just 800 people.  By mail.  PEP started within 96 hours.  For 14 days.

    We conducted a national, household-randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of HCQ post-exposure prophylaxis, using remote study procedures. We enrolled close contacts exposed to persons with SARS-CoV-2 infection in the past 96 hours. Participants were randomized to either HCQ (400 mg daily for three days followed by 200 mg daily for eleven days) or ascorbic acid (500 mg followed by 250 mg daily), as a placebo-equivalent control

    As we now know, PEP must be started rapidly post-exposure.  Hours count.  The sooner the better.  We have known this for years.  Here’s what CDC has to say about HIV PEP:

    https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/pep.html

    PEP stands for post-exposure prophylaxis. It means taking antiretroviral medicines (ART) after being potentially exposed to HIV to prevent becoming infected.

    PEP must be started within 72 hours after a recent possible exposure to HIV, but the sooner you start PEP, the better. Every hour counts. If you’re prescribed PEP, you’ll need to take it once or twice daily for 28 days. PEP is effective in preventing HIV when administered correctly, but not 100%.

    You get the sense if you have an HIV exposure, its a “run, don’t walk” situation for HIV PEP.  Go to the ER now, not later.  Hours count.

    Along those lines, Boulware’s PEP study showed potential efficacy in the groups that received HCQ PEP on days 0 and 1, but not on day 2-3.  Problem is, his study was underpowered.  There just weren’t enough people in it.

    Because of this 96 hour window, and perhaps due to the overly short 14-day treatment with just 200 mg HCQ, I believe this study was designed to fail.  That – and 800 people seems underpowered to me also.

    From Boulware, HCQ might provide efficacy as PEP if taken within 24 hours of a close contact.  We already know from Boulware that it almost certainly doesn’t prevent infection if taken 96 hours after contact.

    I’ll be curious to see if there was any change in severity of outcome.  If they didn’t measure that, I won’t be too surprised.  After all, this was funded by Gates, which is all-in on the vaccines.  He doesn’t want HCQ to work in any way shape or form, and if a trial can possibly be designed to fail, it will be one funded by Gates.

    The study is supported through the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator, an initiative launched by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome and Mastercard, with support from an array of public and philanthropic donors …

    It would be like Microsoft funding a survey on “Mac vs Windows” users, and expecting such a study to come back with a “Mac is awesome” outcome.  It would simply never happen.

    I mean, its a fun game to try and sort out exactly HOW they designed it to fail, I suppose.  But you kinda already know this will be the outcome based on the funding source.

    • Mon, Oct 26, 2020 - 03:17am

      #7

      davefairtex

      Status Member (Offline)

      Joined: Sep 03 2008

      Posts: 2190

      count placeholder2

      value is all about confidence

    If the internet continues as it has since inception, bitcoin will do just fine.

    If not, then the longer the internet is down, the more bitcoin’s value will drop.  That’s a guess – based on human nature.  If you can’t get at your wealth, and neither can anyone else, it will cease to have value for you, because confidence in the currency will decline.

    * Can it be exposed to salt water for 400 years like coins from a Spanish galleon and still have the same value?  [The “coins” are stored in a database – said database is replicated on 12000  computers worldwide.  So – yes.  If one of those computers sink, heck if half of them do, nobody even notices.]

    * Can it be buried in a backyard during WW2 and be dug up and still have value? [same answer.  replicated database.]

    * Can it survive societal breakdown, technological breakdown, energy source collapse, an EMP event, a CME event, digital media decay, etc., etc? [Theoretically yes – practically, no.  The entire database will almost certainly survive in some form or another, to be later dug up by archeologists, but until that event, you won’t have access.  And neither will anyone else.]

    Gold provides intertwined value-and-access because it is “molecules.”

    Bitcoin provides value, but the access is mediated by the internet.  No internet = no access.  No access for any “reasonably long” amount of time = value declines, because access is part of the “confidence in currency” equation.

    If you can’t access your bank account, it effectively doesn’t exist during the time you have no access.  Same thing is true for bitcoin.

    And a prolonged non-access situation will decrease people’s confidence.  People demand access.  A few days of non-access is fine – weeks and months of non-access is fine, as long as it is voluntary.  Six months of involuntary non-access is a disaster for confidence.

    And as with all currencies, confidence is everything.

    • Mon, Oct 26, 2020 - 01:45am

      #50

      davefairtex

      Status Member (Offline)

      Joined: Sep 03 2008

      Posts: 2190

      count placeholder0

      fear gets old

    Well, with lockdowns and fines and police in other countries enforcing the rules, its pretty clear that Sweden is doing a lot less restricting.  And their outcome is a whole lot better.   No deaths for days now, and the economic outcome is very good.  Did I mention no deaths for days now?

    GDP Change since Q4 2019:

    Sweden: -8.3%
    Denmark: -8.8%
    Poland: -9.3%
    Netherlands: -10.0%
    Germany: -11.7%
    Canada: -13.6%
    Italy: -18.5%
    France: -19.7%
    UK: -22.3%
    Spain: -23.0%

    Sweden now has some comparatively modest restrictions – you can only put 50 people in a bar now.  And their restrictions leading up to this were just suggestions.  I mean, if your risk from dying from this virus is practically nil (say, you were below 30), then why should you be locked up?  It just makes no sense.  [If the police don’t show up and take you away or issue a fine – it’s essentially a suggestion, not a restriction.]

    I mean, aren’t we supposed to be following the science here?

    If you are at risk, stay home.  If you are not at risk, then you can live your life.

    And even if you are at risk, for heaven’s sake, take your vitamin-D supplements, melatonin, get some exercise – walk around outside, even if it is a bit chilly now.  Lose that fat too.  Fat is a killer.  Staying at home and not-moving is even more deadly – heart disease, diabetes, cancer – they all kill more people than COVID-19. At least in America they do.  You have a vote in your own health outcome.  Many people don’t use it.

    I strongly feel that us older people should not rely on a policy of “locking up the youngsters” so that we don’t feel quite so worried.

    And on that note – I encourage you to try not to be too jealous of the youngsters and their immunity.  Its just the cycle of life.  Sometimes I go out in my location and I see them having a good time.  I think it is nice to see them all hang out with no fear.  That’s how life should be.

    Fear just gets old, doesn’t it?  And it sure doesn’t help the immune system either.

    • Sat, Oct 24, 2020 - 09:56am

      #11

      davefairtex

      Status Member (Offline)

      Joined: Sep 03 2008

      Posts: 2190

      count placeholder0

      xyz failure?

    If Sweden suffers an actual second wave, rather than just a bunch of positive tests that ends up with very few deaths, then I’ll start to get worried.

    Can you point me at the places where the media is excited about?  Have they had a first wave yet?

    Our guinea pig states are those who went through a wave with few restrictions & no lockdowns.  Like Florida.

    So far Florida looks pretty good.

    If this was the “Dark Winter” with the 1918 super scary second wave, vastly more dangerous than the first, we’d be seeing bodies pile up in Europe right now.

    That’s not happening.

    Ergo, this is an election year politics thing.  And/or a “hide in the basement/wait for the vaccine” thing.

    • Sat, Oct 24, 2020 - 09:15am

      #47

      davefairtex

      Status Member (Offline)

      Joined: Sep 03 2008

      Posts: 2190

      count placeholder1

      BCG vaccine at birth

    Whoa.  Here are the nations in Asia that give BCG vaccine at birth.

    Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Japan, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia.

    Notice anything common to these places?  They all did “very well” with COVID-19.  Really very well.

    In that Indian HCW observational study, those Indian HCWs who had previously received the BCG vaccine at birth had less than half the infection rate (7.8%) of those who did not (16.9%).

    The overall study is worthwhile to read.  Turns out a vegetarian diet (6.67%) might be helpful too vs non-veg (12.24%).  And of course female (8.51%) vs male (13.76%).

    See “Table 1” for all these details.  What if diet, BCG at birth, as well as overall (normal) weight of population, accounted for most of their success?

    https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php

    For instance, Thailand had the largest single number of inbound Chinese tourists from Wuhan of any place in the world – far more than Italy, Spain, and France.  And from what I understand, mask-wearing was not a big thing there until March.  Yet they totally dodged the bullet.  Maybe this is why.  Good diet, BCG at birth, normal weight population.  And the “wai” – no hugging or shaking hands, no shoes in the house, 3-5 showers a day, etc.

Viewing 10 posts - 31 through 40 (of 3,217 total)