This [Q-3]TH of AUGUST FRIDAY open thread is OPEN – VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA / KAG! / KMAG world (KMAG being a bit of both MAGA and KAG!).
You can say what you want, comment on what other people said, and so on.
Free Speech is practiced here. ENJOY IT. Use it or lose it.
Keep it SOMEWHAT civil. They tried to FORCE fake Orwellian civility on us. In response, we CHOOSE true civility to defend our precious FREEDOM from THEM.
Our rules began with the civility of the Old Treehouse, later to become the Wolverinian Empire, and one might say that we have RESTORED THE OLD REPUBLIC – the early high-interaction model of the Treehouse – except of course that Q discussion is not only allowed but encouraged, and speech is considerably freer in other ways. Please feel free to argue and disagree with the board owner, as nicely as possible.
Please also consider the Important Guidelines, outlined here in the OLD January 1st , 2019 open thread. Let’s not give the odious Internet Censors a reason to shut down this precious haven.
SPEAK THE FIVE WORDS BOLDLY TO OUR PRESIDENT!
“I AM PRAYING FOR YOU!“
AND WHAT TIME IS IT?
DRAIN THE SWAMP
Is about replacing
With a new government controlled
By you, the American People.Candidate Donald J. Trump
Also remember Wheatie’s Rules:
- No food fights.
- No running with scissors.
- If you bring snacks, bring enough for everyone.
Little Boy, Fat Man & The Sundance Kid
OK – we have a problem. Sundance’s reveal, undoubtedly a NUKE of Eeyore proportions, is coming soon.
Many of us want to talk about “Sundance stuff”, which tends toward DOWNSIDE THINKING.
I will agree that SD does not do “mea culpa” well, or even “at all”!!!
I believe SD’s point about Mueller team control is not going to convince those who don’t see “control from below” as control. SD’s mind lives inside DOJ structure, and not everybody can or even wants to follow him there, but in a DOJ-centric problem, I gladly adopt his framework of seeing things, because it works like crazy for me, too.
Sundance’s warm-up revelation about Tash Gauhar is solving all sorts of problems for me, and is also enough of a reveal of the SERIOUSNESS of the long-term problems at DOJ, that I am on board with SD’s reveal JUST ON THAT ALONE. His big reveal (not the Durham deputy – the OTHER reveal) HAS TO BE in the space I’m computing, and that space is dangerous as hell to America, and must be revealed before the election, whether Barr is going after it or not. I’m not fully sure what it is, but just the SET OF POSSIBLES is enough that any sunlight becomes good sunlight, Barr or no Barr. IMO.
I do see control from below as control. I would very much like to know more of your thoughts about your last paragraph. An article about that would be great (if I may be so bold!)!
Just saw this – let me get out of notification view and see what I said!
But now, take a look at these tweets, to see where SD is going…..
Sundance responds to a bunch of trolls and splodeyheads, but this one has some meat:
SD is also saying that he will reveal to selected journalists on FRIDAY, and will reveal to US on Saturday.
NOW – here is my problem.
Not everybody here wants to see Sundance stuff, which can be – WELL – for many people, especially Q people, demoralizing. I expect his reveal to be BEYOND controversial – I believe it will OFFEND and OUTRAGE, drawing mockery and derision, even if people claim it’s a nothingburger. It will stir the pot – as intended.
So I’m going to make three proposals about where I will discuss “Sundance stuff”.
- keep it in the daily open – DEAL WITH IT – FIGHT OVER IT
- separate posts, NOT in the daily open – KEEP IT AWAY
- on The U Tree
I can live with any of these, but I currently believe “other posts here” is the best for all concerned. Let me know what you all think. It will happen before morning.
Repeating from last week, I continue to harp on the “LancetGate Effect”.
This is the article that brought it to my attention:
…..and here is the original article…..
Banning HCQ in Switzerland left a FOOTPRINT in the data. I would argue that there is half a footprint in FRANCE, too…..
This evidence is extremely convincing, and is blowing people away. I get more “old” likes and retweets on this one, than almost anything.
But here is the biggie:
There was a LancetGate Effect in The United States.
This graph is a real convincer.
I alerted administration HCQ advocate Peter Navarro to this (having no idea if he saw my tweet – only TWITTER and the DNC and the CCP know), because I think there is a “knowledge crisis” here. Waiting too long for published data (by the same publications which were victimized by LancetGate, no less!) showing we’re killing people by letting the media badmouth a “best current early treatment”, is a RISK to many – science, the people, AND this administration – maybe even to its enemies, who will ultimately pay for an increasingly costly crime.
We really should have seen this coming – that there would be KARMA and CONSEQUENCES for banning HCQ on less than pure motives.
However, once you start digging into the FDA drama, it gets complicated – particularly with saboteurs like Rick Bright entering the mix.
But let’s ask a question posed by Gail Combs – is this whole HCQ thing a TRAP?
You know – THAT is a damn good question.
Wolfie what is your take on this subject?
I really think we need to thoroughly explore this possible ‘TRAP’ (Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t) so we understand it.
Gingersmom2009 earlier was saying that President Trump is ‘Weak’ because he did not use an E.O. to overrule the ANTI-HCQ SABOTEURS in the CDC, FDA….
… I and don’t want to be that floating turd — but someone was pretty strident here in a reply to me yesterday AM about the Stanton Act and how POTUS can’t go against Fauci/Birx or he’ll be removed from office. The EUA is exactly what needs to happen….
That was me.
DP, Ginger, and others.
Causualties in nursing homes was done PRECISELY to get the reaction you have. These people have spent over 100 years perfecting the methods of ‘herding you’ into the direction they want you to go
AND THEY ARE PURE EVIL…..
[start of a long comment]
I can understand why DP, Ginger, and others are furious and want POTUS to DO SOMETHING! I am livid too. I am so angry that if a Karen demonrat gets in my face about masks I would probably punch them…
HOWEVER, I can step back and I THINK I SEE A TRAP.
So what say you?
Is POTUS sidestepping a trap? Or is he ‘weak’ in not using an E.O. to address the HCQ issue?
THIS is a beautiful demonstration of how politics and science are interacting BADLY, and why we need to keep both politics and corporate money OUT of influencing science judgments.
We will deal with part of this below, in something I call “therapeutic agnosticism”.
For now, I think it’s very legitimate to ask about Trump’s relationship with both the health bureaucracy – much of which OPPOSES HIM and SUPPORTED HILLARY CLINTON – and with the corporate and NGO behemoths – much of that world controlled by Bill Gates – and most of which is also politically opposed to Trump.
I think that the other side will weaponize ANYTHING, and yes – I think they may well have been trying to trap Trump on HCQ.
In my opinion President Trump has done enough. He has been honest about his belief in HCQ, but he is letting the medical pros make decisions, and they will answer for any mistakes.
If FDA scientists don’t reverse course on HCQ due to the LancetGateEffect, and the evidence keeps rolling in, then I believe Azar and Hahn will have all they need to clean the place out very soon.
There are constructive paths forward – I’ve suggested one already, but there are others. Any EUA or other action which broad-brushes early use of more antivirals and explicitly includes HCQ is fairly absolving without spotlighting, and serves the interests of both “big pharma” and “people’s pharma”.
Note that remdesivir has been approved for more widespread use. If that use can be moved forward in time, such as allowing an early bolus injection “somewhat off label” or EUAed under doctor’s supervision, early in HCQ COVID treatment, and it gives improved results (I would almost bet on it), then patients, doctors, and researchers all benefit. Likewise, EIDD-2801 and RLF-100 need to be tried earlier, IMO.
Yes, to some extent this is expensive “boutique medicine”, adding big costs for small percentages of better outcomes, but honestly, THAT is exactly why people have private insurance and THEIR OWN preferred providers and drugs. Research is expensive, well-heeled customers who will spare no expense WANT that extra edge, so it’s a match made in capitalism.
If the MONEY can get these new fresh drugs WHEN THEY NEED THEM, and those who want cheap and reliable HCQ can get THAT when they need it, then hopefully we can all benefit – most of all insuring that patients are not dying of this minor but annoying flu which – I have to say on now-sketchy lungs – is not exactly as minor as the usual coughs and colds, even if it is, for most, more minor than regular flu.
So let’s talk about therapeutics in general, but FIRST just one of them.
Ivermectin & COVID-19
Thanks to bakocarl for turning me on to this article, which has proven very enlightening as I’ve dealt with the PROCESS of understanding it at a general level.
I had promised that I would do an explainer on this, and to some extent I already did, in comments, but I want to get some deeper thoughts out there. Also, this topic brings up the issue of “therapeutic agnosticism”. This is about not just STATING conflicts of interest in backing or not backing particular therapeutics, but DEALING with those conflicts – ADDRESSING THEM – very openly. Thus, I explain this idea more fully below.
This article has a freely downloadable PDF version HERE: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.07.20145979v1.full.pdf
If you search through the whole article, you will NOT find zinc mentioned AT ALL, and any time zinc is not controlled, an HCQ or HCQ+AZT study is operating with a loose wheel, in my opinion.
This becomes even more important because of the way the CONTROL for the ivermecting (IVM) add-on was done.
The control study for IVM+HCQ+AZT was done by RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS of earlier hospital treatment using HCQ+AZT alone. The authors understand fully the limitations of doing this, and I agree with them fully – it is better to do a potentially flawed study here than none at all. There is a strong ETHICAL argument for comparing PAST BEST to NEW BEST – and one doesn’t have to invoke Melania to know it’s right – DOING BEST is BEING BEST!
Using dice to send some patients to WORSE TREATMENT is not a braggable thing. Better to take some lumps on uncertainty, IMO.
What are the risks of comparing two hospital studies NOT done at the same time – where one of them is designated a “control”?
“Control” assumes that you’ve changed exactly what you know you changed – it means that you have a reliable reference, preferably MINIMIZING differences that have to be explained away.
Yes, it’s the same hospital, the same doctors, the same staff, but we all know that treatment for COVID has changed MASSIVELY over time. Here are important changes:
- less vents
- more steroids
- better diet including vitamins and minerals to resolve deficiencies
- more oxygen earlier
- better testing, all kinds
As you can see, there are reasons for outcomes to be better now, completely independent of the study object, ivermectin. NEVERTHELESS, the authors DO see better results – significantly better – if they give patients a big dose of IVM at the beginning of HCQ-AZT treatment. They do as much correcting for differences as they can, in comparing individual outcomes, and I believe they tried to do a good job.
Skipping past how I got there, my reading of this is that IVM is very likely acting a LOT like AZT (azithromycin, Z-pak, AZM, whatever). It is providing a SHOTGUN for unicellular and multicellular organisms, weighted toward PARASITES. It has a different SPECTRUM from AZT, and will complement it. This will affect both pre-existing and new infections.
It is EXTREMELY LIKELY that this should work, even if IVM has NO ANTIVIRAL ACTIVITY.
It’s beautiful science – and also explains why the “pro-crisis” camp would oppose use of ivermectin.
The argument isn’t whether ivermectin is an antiviral, or any worse or better than anything else. The argument is whether is can be used to save lives, and how well it does that, versus something else – including simply NOT USING IT.
If these results hold, or are even partially confirmed, then I think ivermectin needs an EUA along with HCQ and several other new antivirals, for doctors to begin solving things EARLY with antivirals and “therapeutic adjuvants”, when they work best, as I mentioned LAST WEEK.
Now, let’s talk about therapeutic agnosticism.
On Staying Therapeutically Agnostic
Now – we have seen incredible bias against hydroxychloroquine – nicely summarized HERE:
If you get into that article, you will see where “the powers that be” try to KNEECAP hydroxychloroquine into “hospital use only” – which absolutely does not make sense, until you realize that one of the more unique problems of the new and just recently approved antiviral drug remdesivir (which Fauci labeled the “new standard” despite unimpressive performance in late-stage COVID), is that the drug needs to not only be administered by IV, but it also has to be observed closely for nasty side effects, and thus being up until recently stuck in a late stage, hospital patient track, which is NOT a good place for antiviral success.
SO – rather than getting remdesivir into earlier settings, what did they do? What the CHICOMS routinely do – KNEECAP THE COMPETITION in some way that nobody sees.
Honestly, if you’ve been in science and been halfway observant, you’ve seen how the corrupt ChiComs operate – MAFIA techniques – frequently SABOTAGING the other guy, although perhaps not until AFTER stealing the technology – so they seem to be quite comfy with the general lack of morality of the growing “medical mafia” in the US.
A match made in HELL.
Anyway – here is the deal.
We do NOT want to be like them THE OTHER WAY.
- don’t cheer the failure of ANY drug – figure it out and fix it
- every drug is different – help them ALL find their perfect niche to help us
- never ever conduct a sabotage study like LancetGate
- don’t reject studies “going the other way” – UNDERSTAND AND EXPLAIN THEM
- call out sabotage, bias and error, no matter who is committing it
- if you know why “the other guy’s drug” is FAILING, you are morally obligated to help fix it
- if you know why “the other guy’s drug” is WORKING, you are morally obligated to explain and even recommend it
- pharmacology is not a zero sum game, even though patients are a zero sum market – every new drug adds to the arsenal of salvation
In short, I wish for people who are fighting the suppression of HCQ to not become deniers, defamers, and “opponents” of other drugs and vaccines, because doctors need those too, for patients who want or need those specific drugs or treatments.
LIVE AND LET LIVE.
Even if the other team doesn’t play that way.
By this attitude, we will DEMONSTRATE the superiority of our approach, which I sometimes call POPULAR MEDICINE.
The fly in the ointment that mocks the smooth, lying MASK SOCIALISTS is SWEDEN.
To which I responded…..
This wonderful meme comes from Aubergine. I also used it HERE:
We need to start thinking about measuring things, because I am CERTAIN that masks are hurting us – nickeling and diming us to death.
I am having success understanding oxygen deprivation using my cheap oximeter, but I need perhaps a more expensive model to take finer cumulative readings and record them.
Gail Combs suggests that we can capture mask CO2 as well.
Let us think about this problem, because I am certain that CHINA is behind it.
I will add details later of why I believe normal mask wear leads to cognitive deficits for 30-60 minutes AFTER shopping with a mask.
Carry on, Digital Soldiers!