Coronavirus COVID-19 (a.k.a. 2019-nCoV) outbreak in China

[FreeLancer]

Regarding Big Pharma suppressing HCQ because it's cheap and not patent-controlled...  This person said it better than I can:

More here (warning for coarse language):
https://www.facebook.com/yvetteguinevere/posts/10100347097800474

Truth.

[iam4liberty]

That post is a total joke.  Doesn't even make one cogent argument against any of the studies.  Even the ones where they claim "no statistically significant" effect show big descriptive effect.  It is just a matter of base size as shown by meta-analysis.

More to the point, since hydroxychloroquine is safe, why not let doctors prescribe it just like they are doing in several other countries?  Instead they are actively interfering with the doctor patient relationship.  It is especially funny when people argue against federal involvement to stop riots citing a local control argument then turn around and pull out all the stops in preventing clinical use, research, or even mentioning the name in an online video.  It is going to be funny when all the pro-choicers march and everyone responds, "Sorry, if we can ban hydroxychloroquine then we can ban abortions too. 

There simply have been zero legitimate arguments made that merit the  anti-hydroxychloriquine mania.  Hence why everyone is skeptical of the motives of those pushing that narrative.

[FreeLancer]

There’s no shortage of docs willing to prescribe hydroxychloroquine, if you want it.

[Mr. Bill]

That post is a total joke.  Doesn't even make one cogent argument against any of the studies. ...

It was an angry editorial, not a compilation of evidence.  The key point was in the section I quoted.  If there's a conspiracy between Big Pharma and Democrats to suppress HCQ, why is there no similar conspiracy to suppress dexamethazone?

There is no conspiracy.  There's just a whole lot of medical professionals and researchers who honestly believe HCQ is the wrong drug for COVID.

[iam4liberty]

It was an angry editorial, not a compilation of evidence.  The key point was in the section I quoted.  If there's a conspiracy between Big Pharma and Democrats to suppress HCQ, why is there no similar conspiracy to suppress dexamethazone?

You're kidding, right?  Dexamethazone faced an onslaught in the media just like hydroxychloroquine.  It was the same medical personel who defended hydroxychloroquine who defended dexamethazone.  It is one of the three treatments promoted by the frontline doctors, for different stages of the disease.The only difference was in the rabidity of the attacks with hydroxychloroquine being more vicious because the president used it. 

Here is just a handful of thousands of such articles when you do a google search.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/dexamethasone-really-a-covid-19-breakthrough-not-so-fast-doctors-say
Is dexamethasone really a COVID-19 breakthrough? Not so fast, doctors say
Not long after researchers in England said the low-cost steroid dexamethasone reduced deaths among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, health experts around the world started raising alarm bells about the study—and the extreme enthusiasm it generated.

https://meaww.com/hype-over-dexamethasone-covid-19-cure-might-prove-to-be-costly-break-peoples-trust-in-science
Hype over dexamethasone as Covid-19 cure might prove to be costly and break people's trust in science: Expert

https://m.businesstoday.in/story/coronavirus-pandemic-us-doctors-view-reported-success-of-dexamethasone-with-skepticism/1/407167.html
Coronavirus pandemic: US doctors view reported success of dexamethasone with skepticism

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/17/coronavirus-update-who-urges-caution-on-dexamethasone-citing-early-data.html
WHO urges caution on ‘breakthrough’ coronavirus drug dexamethasone, citing early data
The World Health Organization is urging the public to be cautious about dexamethasone...it was only one study, a WHO official said.

https://www.newsmax.com/health/health-news/dexamethasone-COVID-19-felony-charges/2020/06/17/id/972689/
Buying Dexamethasone Online for COVID-19 Could Be Dangerous

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200206110703.htm
Steroids could do more harm than good in treating coronavirus

https://www.techarp.com/science/dexamethasone-covid-19-danger/
Dexamethasone : Do NOT Self-Medicate Against COVID-19!
Find out how dexamethasone helps against COVID-19, and why you should NOT use dexamethasone

https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/dexamethasone-wonder-cure-covid-19-doctor-writes-127297
Is Dexamethasone the wonder cure for COVID-19? A doctor writes
The headlines around this drug lack the context that helps us understand the limits of its benefits.

https://m.hindustantimes.com/health/hydroxychloroquine-dexamethasone-remdesivir-desperation-science-slows-the-hunt-for-coronavirus-solutions/story-rFfOhH330j77QIs3iAo6XL.html
Hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone, remdesivir: ‘Desperation science’ slows the hunt for coronavirus solutions


The truth be told, deamethazone was dead in the water until Boris Johnson almost died and afterwards ordered large sample trials so the results were incontrovertable.  This is exactly what scientists wanted for hydroxychloroquine but WHO and the fake studies published in The Lancet and other medical journals disrupted those.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/07/one-uk-trial-transforming-covid-19-treatment-why-haven-t-others-delivered-more-results
One U.K. trial is transforming COVID-19 treatment. Why haven’t others delivered more results?

It’s very, very rare that you announce results at lunchtime, and it becomes policy and practice by tea time, and probably starts to save lives by the weekend,” Landray told Science at the time of the steroid result.

Large, randomized trials are the gold standard to test a drug’s efficacy. But they have been scarce so far in the COVID-19 pandemic. “Everybody has the first part about “randomized,” but they omitted the “large” part...Every clinician, every researcher wants to help and then they end up having a trial with 300 or 400 patients that cannot come up with conclusive evidence.”

One reason Recovery has done so well is that it was backed by the United Kingdom’s centralized National Health Service (NHS), involving 176 of its hospitals.

https://www.everythingzoomer.com/health/2020/06/16/covid-19-u-k-prime-minister-boris-johnson-hails-drug-dexamethasone-as-the-biggest-breakthrough-yet/
COVID-19: Boris Johnson Calls Dexamethasone “Biggest Breakthrough Yet”
Speaking at his daily Downing Street briefing, Prime Minister Boris Johnson said there was a genuine case to celebrate “a remarkable British scientific achievement,” adding: “We have taken steps to ensure we have enough supplies, even in the event of a second peak.”

Johnson also called dexamethasone the “biggest breakthrough yet” in the hunt to find a long-term solution for COVID-19. In April, the prime minister spent a week in London’s St. Thomas hospital being treated for the respiratory illness, receiving oxygen while in intensive care for three days of his stay./i]

[Prepper456]

More to the point, since hydroxychloroquine is safe, why not let doctors prescribe it just like they are doing in several other countries? 

France, Italy, Germany, and Belgium announced they would ban the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat coronavirus patients after recent studies revealed serious safety issues with the anti-malaria drug.

[iam4liberty]

France, Italy, Germany, and Belgium announced they would ban the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat coronavirus patients after recent studies revealed serious safety issues with the anti-malaria drug.

No.  The Lancet was forced to retract the fake study on which that decision was based..  In fact, Dr. Didier Raoult Is now suing Martin Hirsch, the director of the Public Hospitals of Paris, after her used the fake data to defame him in the hearings.  The trials are back on.

In fact, three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials show that the prescribed hydroxychloroquine treatment is safe.

https://www.politico.eu/article/france-clamps-down-on-hydroxychloroquine-use-for-covid-19/
France clamps down on hydroxychloroquine use for COVID-19
Move follows publication of a study casting doubt on the drug’s benefit for COVID-19 patients.

Update: The Lancet hydroxychloroquine study was on June 4 retracted by the authors, who said they cannot “vouch for the veracity of the primary data.”


https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20200730-didier-raoult-files-false-testimony-complaint-against-paris-hospital-director-hirsch-coronavirus-deaths
French medical doctor Didier Raoult is suing the director of Paris' public hospitals body for defamation following accusations that Raoult lied under oath during a parliamentary hearing on the coronavirus crisis.


https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200727/Clinical-Trials-of-Hydroxychloroquine-in-COVID-19-Outpatients-Are-Safe.aspx
Clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 outpatients reported as safe

According to new research published in the preprint server medRxiv* in July 2020, the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) among outpatients in clinical trials, without high-risk factors for cardiac arrhythmia, is safe, with gastrointestinal side-effects being the most common side effects and no fatal adverse outcomes.

[FreeLancer]

Cumulative Cases/Deaths per Million Population

Nation/State	Cases/mil	Deaths/mil
Peru	12,345	576
Chile	18,481	490
US	13,996	469
Brazil	12,290	430
Mexico	3,225	356
Panama	14,859	323
Canada	3,066	236
---	---	---
New Jersey	21,051	1,789
New York	22,772	1,684
Massachusetts ^x1	16,989	1,247
Connecticut	13,932	1,243
Rhode Island	17,888	951
Louisiana ^x1	24,626	845
Washington, DC	17,084	827
Michigan	8,990	645
Illinois	14,058	605
Delaware ^x2	15,085	597
Maryland	14,420	577
Pennsylvania	9,050	568
Mississippi	19,347	541
Arizona ^x1	23,465	498
Indiana	9,693	438
Georgia	17,169	346
South Carolina ^x7	17,009	324
Alabama ^x2	17,491	319
Colorado	8,023	316
Florida ^x5	21,482	307
New Hampshire	4,813	305
New Mexico ^x1	9,723	303
Ohio ^x1	7,669	295
Minnesota	9,520	290
Iowa	13,960	272
Nevada ^x1	15,202	260
Virginia	10,416	251
Texas ^x4	14,943	231
California	12,503	228
Missouri	8,043	210
Washington	7,547	206
North Carolina	11,499	184
Nebraska	13,320	170
Kentucky	6,577	164
Wisconsin	8,950	158
Tennessee ^x1	15,063	151
Arkansas ^x1	13,838	146
South Dakota	9,817	146
Oklahoma ^x1	9,032	135
North Dakota	8,268	135
Kansas	9,331	122
Idaho ^x3	11,329	99
Utah ^x2	12,382	94
Maine ^x1	2,892	91
Vermont	2,255	91
Oregon	4,299	75
West Virginia	3,583	64
Montana ^x1	3,569	51
Wyoming	4,641	45
Alaska	3,934	31
Hawaii	1,405	18

South Carolina, Texas, and Florida all moved many rungs up the death ladder in the last week.

The 7-day moving average daily deaths has been above 1,000 the last two days, which is double the rate the US had dipped to at the beginning of July.

[iam4liberty]

There’s no shortage of docs willing to prescribe hydroxychloroquine, if you want it.

Indeed, many doctors see the benefit of prescribing it, both for patients and their staffs . That is why the medical authoritarians have been targetting pharmacists around the country, threatening to revoke their licenses if they don't get on board with their politically driven demands.

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/5547751002
Ohio pharmacy board reverses ban on hydroxychloroquine

The State of Ohio Board of Pharmacy has changed course on its ban of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine as coronavirus treatments
...
Beginning Thursday, pharmacies, clinics and other medical institutions were to be prohibited from dispensing or selling the drugs to treat COVID-19, according to regulations issued by the State of Ohio Board of Pharmacy.
...

DeWine said the decision of how to treat COVID-19 should instead be between patients and their doctors.

“The Board of Pharmacy and the State Medical Board of Ohio should revisit the issue, listen to the best medical science, and open the process up for comment and testimony from experts,”
...
Under the regulation, pharmacists in Ohio found to be selling or dispensing the drug to treat COVID-19 could have faced disciplinary action ranging anywhere from a warning or fine to a temporary suspension of their license.
...
the Ohio Board of Pharmcy cracked down on doctors who were hoarding hydroxychloroquine for themselves, family and friends
...
On April 20, Capital Wholesale Drug in Columbus donated 2 million hydroxychloroquine pills — worth about $680,000 — from drug maker Prasco, which is based in Mason, Ohio.
 .
“The company that donated the 2 million pills is taking them back,” Amato said via email Wednesday.

[iam4liberty]

Jack's open challenge.  Definitely worth the read and listen.

http://www.thesurvivalpodcast.com/an-open-challenge-to-debate-any-scientist-or-doctor-on-the-merits-of-hcq-for-the-treatment-and-prevention-of-covid
An Open Challenge to Debate Any Scientist or Doctor on the Merits of HCQ for the Treatment and Prevention of CoVid

The Open Challenge

I have been trying to do this since March and have ramped it up hard in the last week, I have had no takers on this issue.  I am open to other points of debate but specifically here are 9 points of debate I want to have with any professional about hydroxychloroquine, (hereafter referred to as HCQ in this article) as it relates to CoVid and the prevention and treatment of it.

1. HCQ is safe and the claim it should only be used in a hospital is a blatant lie
2. HCQ is a zinc ionophore which means it gets zinc inside of human cells and this is known science
3. Zinc in the human cell disrupts viral replication of mRNA replicating viruses and this is known science
4. No RCT has included zinc as of 7-31-20
5. All negative RCTs overdosed patients and did not include zinc, most were in late stages of the illness when the lungs were already severely damaged
6. There are multiple positive studies that counter the negative studies
7. The existing studies are so flawed that it at least appears intentional (over dosing, late stage use and the omission of a critical component of care)
8. There is ample evidence to support the use of HCQ for covid treatment and prevention
9. Doctors should not be banned from prescribing HCQ for any use they feel would be of benefit to a patient

[iam4liberty]

The bias against hydroxychlorquine is literally now a subject in the medical ethics journals.  Dr. Harvey A. Risch, MD, PhD and professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, made a prognostication in his courageous open letter:  "In the future, I believe this misbegotten episode regarding hydroxychloroquine will be studied by sociologists of medicine as a classic example of how extra-scientific factors overrode clear-cut medical evidence."  It has already come true.

https://theprint.in/health/researchers-smell-a-rat-say-expensive-remdesivir-getting-subtle-push-over-hcq-in-studies/471983/?amp
Researchers smell a rat, say expensive remdesivir getting ‘subtle push’ over HCQ in studies

A “subtle push” is being given to remdesivir (RDV) as a treatment for Covid-19 while hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is being “snubbed” despite the two drugs showing similar results with respect to coronavirus, a group of researchers has said.
...
The IJME is India’s only journal on bioethics and medical ethics, and is published by the Forum for Medical Ethics Society (FMES)
...
According to the researchers, HCQ appears to be courting greater scrutiny with respect to safety and efficacy, and risks associated with the much more expensive remdesivir seem to be getting played down.

The fact that this may be driven by “political affiliation, profiteering, and other conflicts of interest cannot be ruled out at this stage”, they say in an article titled “Hydroxychloroquine and Remdesivir (RDV) in COVID-19: A critical analysis of recent events” and published in the July-September print issue of the quarterly journal.   

“Criticism of HCQ has been focused on safety (increased risk of adverse events and arrhythmias), followed by efficacy (lack of clinical or mortality benefit). However, there has been no acknowledgement of the high dose of HCQ given [during trials] when compared to the lower dose recommended by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR),” they write.

“On the other hand, the lack of mortality benefit with RDV is being downplayed, and attempts to highlight a lack of new safety risks, despite observations to the contrary, are repeatedly made. It appears as if HCQ is being more closely scrutinised when compared to the lighter treatment given to RDV,” they add.
...
“confounders such as political affiliation, profiteering, and other conflicts of interest cannot be ruled out at this stage, with the available evidence and information”.
...
“The safety profile of HCQ is well-known since it has been in use for various other conditions as well. On the other hand, RDV has not been in long-term use for any other condition, and lacks a clear safety profile,” the researchers note.
...
“It appears that a subtle push is being given to RDV, the safety of which is not adequately established; while HCQ is being subtly snubbed, despite both drugs having similar efficacy patterns.”

This, the researchers say, appears to be in “contravention of the basic ethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice”.

[Mr. Bill]

Reuters, 8/2/20: U.S. coronavirus 'extraordinarily widespread', say White House experts

...“We are in a new phase,” said Dr. Deborah Birx. “What we are seeing today is different from March and April. It is extraordinarily widespread” in rural as well as urban areas.

“To everybody who lives in a rural area: You are not immune or protected from this virus,” Birx said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Birx, the White House task force coordinator, said people living in multigenerational households in an area that is experiencing an outbreak should wear masks inside the home to protect the elderly or those with underlying conditions.

Admiral Brett Giroir, an assistant Health and Human Services secretary, continued to stress the importance of wearing masks.

“If we don’t do that, and if we don’t limit the indoor crowded spaces, the virus will continue to run,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”  ...

[surfivor]

How do they know, is predicting future disease outcome a proven and known field of science or is it just theory or anyone's guess ?

[Mr. Bill]

How do they know, is predicting future disease outcome a proven and known field of science or is it just theory or anyone's guess ?

Epidemiology for the uninitiated, from the BMJ.

[surfivor]

I googled epidemiology got it wrong and got quite a lot of results

https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason.com/2016/12/23/an-epidemic-of-bad-epidemiology/%3famp

[Mr. Bill]

I googled epidemiology got it wrong and got quite a lot of results

You Googled what you wanted to find, and you found lots of results, so let's throw out the whole science of epidemiology.

Come on, this news is straight from Deborah Birx, the Trump administration's hand-picked COVID-19 coordinator for the past 6 months.  If you can't trust the Trump administration's warnings about the virus, who can you trust?

Maybe everything will turn out way better than Birx and the epidemiologists predict.  Or maybe it won't.  That's the whole point of prepping, isn't it?

[Greekman]

Reuters, 8/2/20: U.S. coronavirus 'extraordinarily widespread', say White House experts

for the first part, it is what we are seeing in Greece ATM.

For the rural part, it is an expected phenomenon...Such a case that "the virus recedes in the populated areas adn make short spreads in the rural, to recede again" was presented to us in the Epidimiology Coursera webinar I took.

[Mr. Bill]

Another low sample size, somewhat limited representative study. (sigh)  But at least this one included zinc in early treatment and confirmed positive COVID patients .  The results are in line with earlier ones demonstrating dramatic efficacy of the combination. A strong meta-analysis case is forming.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/newly-published-outpatient-study-finds-that-early-use-of-zinc-hydroxychloroquine-and-azithromycin-is-associated-with-less-hospitalizations-and-death-301094237.html
Newly Published Outpatient Study Finds that Early Use of Zinc, Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin Is Associated with Less Hospitalizations and Death

Here's a preprint of the study (version 1, which the authors acknowledge has at least one important misprint):
COVID-19 Outpatients – Early Risk-Stratified Treatment with Zinc Plus Low Dose Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin: A Retrospective Case Series Study

The major flaw in this study (besides the small sample size) is that there is no control group.  Comment #23 discusses this in detail:

The treatment population are patients who presented to their family doctor with mild symptoms. The paper presents this as a strength, as the 'first outpatient study,' which fair enough. It also means that these were almost certainly patients who were less sick than average at presentation. This needs to be clearly reflected in the control group.

There is no control group. There is a comparison group, selected ad hoc after the fact, from some source of data for patients in the same community. We don't know the severity at presentation, or the treatment history, of that comparison group. The paper seems to indicate that neither do the authors. That isn't a controlled study, it's a case series with a seemingly random comparison grafted on after the fact.

We have no idea what the data source for the comparison group is. Literally, none. The authors say it's publicly available community data, but they refuse to name the data source. We have no idea of the characteristics of patients in the control group. None, nada, zilch. All we know is how many there were, how many were hospitalised, and how many died. As one of the comments already points out, we don't even know whether some of the 'controls' might have also gotten the triple therapy.

The authors cite HIPAA to say they can't disclose the data source for the control group. This is confusing. If it's public data, it's public data. Cite the public data source. If it's not public data, that statement is at best misleading. One cannot simply say 'this data came from somewhere, but I can't tell you where,' and expect it to be taken as science.

In the comments, authors respond to this criticism by saying they selected the controls very conservatively. Which means they selected control patients from that undisclosed data source. They don't disclose the selection criteria. We have no idea how they selected the controls from the data source that they also won't disclose. They won't tell us. That's not science.

Given all this, it's entirely possible the 'control group' were patients presenting at the OR with severe disease, who received triple therapy and were hospitalized and died. A reader evaluating your data simply has no way to know.

They make a great deal throughout the paper that treated patients have a much lower death rate than controls. It's one of the major claims of the paper. We have no idea what the control group is, so we don't know if the difference is relevant. But more, that difference is not even statistically significant. The stats show that there is no significant difference in death rates.

Unless I missed something, the authors disclose this in only one sentence, and in one data table, where they show that for mortality, p=0.16, without flagging it as not significant. In fact, they attempt to excuse it, by saying in effect that the lack of significance is caused because they don't know enough about patients in the comparison group. That doesn't save the claim. Rather the opposite, in fact.

It's a case series, not a "case series study." The inclusion of the comparison group in this form is worse than useless, it's actively misleading. If HCQ in any treatment regime actually works, which seems increasingly unlikely based on randomized trials, this paper does a disservice to advancing our knowledge of that fact.

Y'know, I'm trying to give this Zelenko Protocol thing a fair chance.  But all he's got is a hypothesis, and a collection of case results that seem to make a pattern if you blur the background and squint at a 37-degree angle.  I'm just not seeing the overwhelming evidence of success that ought to be obvious after all these months.

I also don't understand why some folks are all excited about one famous epidemiologist who likes HCQ, but ignore all the other famous epidemiologists who say just the opposite.

There's a whole lot of not-really-science going on here, and too much willingness to believe that the fifty zillion anti-HCQ doctors and researchers have all been corrupted or misled by the Big Pharma/Democrat conspiracy.  Maybe they do really know what they're talking about.

[FreeLancer]

I also don't understand why some folks are all excited about one famous epidemiologist who likes HCQ, but ignore all the other famous epidemiologists who say just the opposite.

There's a whole lot of not-really-science going on here, and too much willingness to believe that the fifty zillion anti-HCQ doctors and researchers have all been corrupted or misled by the Big Pharma/Democrat conspiracy.  Maybe they do really know what they're talking about.

"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest......."

[Mr. Bill]

"......."

What did you say?

[Morning Sunshine]

What did you say?

"hmmm, hm hm, hmmmmm"

[Mr. Bill]

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/lancetgate-scientific-corona-lies-big-pharma-corruption-hydroxychloroquine-versus
LancetGate: "Scientific Corona Lies" & Big Pharma Corruption - Hydroxychloroquine Versus Remdesivir

Reads like a standard conspiracy theory article.

About the author:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky and his website Global Research have now been named by Trump's State Department as part of Russia's disinformation network.

US Dept of State, Global Engagement Center, 8/5/20: Briefing With Special Envoy Lea Gabrielle On the GEC Special Report: Pillars of Russia’s Disinformation and Propaganda Ecosystem

...The head of [G]lobal [R]esearch is Michel Chossudovsky, and he’s written many articles on COVID-19 containing disinformation. One of them that was published back in March, you can just see from the headline, as it states in the report, the headline of this is “COVID-19 Coronavirus: A Fake Pandemic? Who’s Behind It? Global Economic, Social and Geopolitical Destabilization.”

So from that headline, calling it a fake pandemic, I think we all recognize it’s not a fake pandemic; it’s real. But this article alone was republished or linked by at least 70 different websites and publications. We’ve also seen China take articles that were written by these proxy websites and then use them. So, for example, China’s foreign ministry spokesman, Zhao Lijian, tweeted two Global Research articles blaming the U.S. for the coronavirus. Those articles have since been deleted, but it shows you how far-reaching these proxy websites can actually go. ...

ZeroHedge reprints a lot of articles from Global Research, so it has become a mouthpiece for Russian propaganda.

[Mr. Bill]

Michel Chossudovsky and his website Global Research have now been named by Trump's State Department as part of Russia's disinformation network.

Global Research is a source of numerous pro-hydroxychloroquine articles:
https://www.google.com/search?q=hydroxychloroquine+site%3Aglobalresearch.ca

Anyone who is getting HCQ information from Global Research (or from the numerous websites that reprint material from Global Research) is being tricked by the world's masters of disinformation.

[David in MN]

An interesting point I somewhat gleaned from a Nassim Taleb paper (and I find myself often compelled by his arguments) is that the best deterrent of COVID was not a medical one but a political one. We often quibble about "the best" policy among northern Europe and North America but most countries fall into a pretty narrow bandwidth.

Taiwan and Hong Kong, however, were quick to fight the illness. (Details aside, I know different strains and all.) They chose to do so not based on medical advice or epidemiological research but on the fundamental belief that the Chinese were lying. While the rest of us naively believed the Chinese and WHO they ran in the other direction.

Interesting viewpoint in that (to use a poker analogy) we played the hand and they played the players.

[FreeLancer]

Cumulative Cases/Deaths per Million Population

Nation/State	Cases/mil	Deaths/mil
Peru	13,793	619
Chile	19,165	517
US	15,194	492
Brazil	13,716	464
Mexico	3,585	391
Panama	16,527	364
Canada	3,139	237
---	---	---
New Jersey	21,339	1,793
New York	23,038	1,687
Massachusetts	17,392	1,261
Connecticut	14,093	1,245
Rhode Island	18,512	957
Louisiana	27,372	892
Washington, DC	17,737	832
Michigan	9,478	651
Illinois	14,971	615
Mississippi ^x3	21,639	613
Delaware	15,779	603
Maryland	15,384	587
Pennsylvania	9,475	575
Arizona	25,231	550
Indiana	10,549	448
Georgia	19,298	379
South Carolina	18,800	337
Florida ^x2	23,764	361
Alabama	19,700	350
Colorado	8,585	322
New Mexico ^x1	10,384	319
Ohio ^x1	8,340	310
New Hampshire	4,958	308
Minnesota	10,398	297
Nevada ^x1	17,388	292
Iowa	15,011	289
Texas ^x1	16,890	280
Virginia	11,232	269
California	13,698	254
Missouri	9,299	221
Washington	8,235	218
North Carolina	12,545	202
Nebraska	14,382	176
Tennessee ^x2	17,037	174
Arkansas ^x2	15,584	171
Kentucky	7,443	170
Wisconsin	9,924	168
South Dakota	10,482	159
Oklahoma	10,463	150
North Dakota	9,418	143
Kansas	10,323	130
Idaho	13,094	125
Utah	13,386	103
Vermont	2,316	93
Maine	2,973	92
Oregon	4,795	80
West Virginia	4,060	69
Montana	4,306	61
Wyoming	5,111	47
Alaska	4,763	34
Hawaii	1,988	20

US deaths are now ~163,000, which is 23% of the global total.

[iam4liberty]

Reads like a standard conspiracy theory article.

About the author:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky


Michel Chossudovsky and his website Global Research have now been named by Trump's State Department as part of Russia's disinformation network.

US Dept of State, Global Engagement Center, 8/5/20: Briefing With Special Envoy Lea Gabrielle On the GEC Special Report: Pillars of Russia’s Disinformation and Propaganda Ecosystem

ZeroHedge reprints a lot of articles from Global Research, so it has become a mouthpiece for Russian propaganda.

LOL.  Seriously, the whole "Putin is hiding under your bed" thing is so 2019.  As with everything, what is important are the facts not the reporting source.  To imply that the retraction of the Lancet article didnt happen because "Russians, Russians, Russians" is just silly.  Always look at the data. 

[Mr. Bill]

As with everything, what is important are the facts not the reporting source.

If you can't trust the reporting source, you can't trust their alleged facts.  Find a more reliable source, or do your own research and become the more reliable source.

The problem is, none of us have the ability to research Russian control of "news" websites at the level that the US State Department has done.  So we have to trust experts.  We now have Trump appointees saying the Russians are spreading COVID disinfo, Democrats saying it, intelligence agencies saying it, medical professionals saying it -- basically everyone except Russia says that Russia is trying to screw with us via COVID disinformation.

If you have some contrary data that shows how Global Research is innocent and reliable, please present it.  You should also send it to the State Department, because evidently they haven't been able to find it out themselves.

[iam4liberty]

If you can't trust the reporting source, you can't trust their alleged facts.  Find a more reliable source, or do your own research and become the more reliable source.

That is just silly.  In fact, that comment is disinformation itself.  You can always verify the facts.  That is the basis of the scientific method.

Disinformation is by definition:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disinformation
false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth

If the data isn't false it can't be disinformation.  So, for example, when someone reports that an article in The Lancet has been retracted it is just silly to respond that this is 'Russian disinformation'.  You can easily go to The Lancet and see the retraction notice. 

The key to getting around bias is to read multiple sources, pull out the relevant info, and then check it.  Keep the info which is factual, discard the rest.  It is an anti-survival position to accept or reject not based on the actual factual basis but because of some bias one has developed for the source.  That is the cause of the 'bubble' people get in that is causing so much sloppy thinking.  If a source is proven over time to consistently egregiously provide bad information (like CNN) then it doesn't mean you dismiss it completely, you just have to be extra vigilant in reviewing what they present.

It is dangerous to be closed-minded, I.e. reject information out of hand because it challenges a belief.  So, for example, it is closed-minded believing 2 million people in US were going to die from coronavirus despite what all the trend data clearly showed.  It is equally dangerous to be open-minded i.e. accepting whatever some talking head tells you without digging further.  For example, believing a headline that some study proves hydroxychloroquine had no effect when the descriptive data itself showed a big positive result.  A survivalist needs to be active-minded, looking at information from a variety of sources with a critical eye.  This is what Jack has been trying to do in his coverage.  Let's look at all the data with a critical eye. 

When one does this, it is clear hydroxychloroquine + zinc treatment has been shown to be safe and seems to has provided benefits in given situations.He has done a pretty good job laying this out his position in data informed pointss.  I would love to see someone actual challenge these rather than just dismiss it with "Russians, Russians, Russians".  No-one is going to buy that conspiracy theory.

So here again are his fact-informed points:

1. HCQ is safe and the claim it should only be used in a hospital is a blatant lie
2. HCQ is a zinc ionophore which means it gets zinc inside of human cells and this is known science
3. Zinc in the human cell disrupts viral replication of mRNA replicating viruses and this is known science
4. No RCT has included zinc as of 7-31-20
5. All negative RCTs overdosed patients and did not include zinc, most were in late stages of the illness when the lungs were already severely damaged
6. There are multiple positive studies that counter the negative studies
7. The existing studies are so flawed that it at least appears intentional (over dosing, late stage use and the omission of a critical component of care)
8. There is ample evidence to support the use of HCQ for covid treatment and prevention
9. Doctors should not be banned from prescribing HCQ for any use they feel would be of benefit to a patient

Will anyone take up the challenge?

[Mr. Bill]

You can always verify the facts.

No, you actually can't, most of the time.  I cannot go to a research lab, check their lab notebooks, interview the people doing the work, try to replicate their experiments, etc.  At some point I just have to trust, or not trust, that their work was not full of errors, and that they analyzed and reported the results honestly and without bias.

I can read the published papers and preprints.  But even there, despite my very rusty biochemistry MS, I can't comprehend all the technical details, and I doubt there is anyone on this forum who is capable of that.  So again I have to rely on somebody's distillation of this info into a simpler form, and hope that their knowledge and judgment is up to the task.

Ditto for The State Department's investigation into which websites are Russian-controlled.  I don't have their resources.  So I have to trust, or not trust, what they say about it.  In this case, so many separate investigations, controlled by separate political parties, have come to the same conclusion, that I'm strongly inclined to believe they're correct.

If the data isn't false it can't be disinformation.  So, for example, when someone reports that an article in The Lancet has been retracted it is just silly to respond that this is 'Russian disinformation'.  You can easily go to The Lancet and see the retraction notice.

Straw man.  Nobody has claimed the article wasn't retracted.  The disinformation is in connecting a carefully selected set of dots to invent the "LancetGate conspiracy".

[FreeLancer]

Science-Based Medicine:  The perils and pitfalls of “doing your own research” about COVID-19 (or any other science)

Anyone with expertise who dips their toes into deconstructing pseudoscientific or crank claims regarding issues about which they are deeply knowledgeable will instantly realize that one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience and conspiracy theories is the cherry picking of studies, data, facts, and observations. The reason is simple. The people espousing pseudoscience tend not to look at the evidence base and then make their conclusions fit the evidence. Rather, they start with a conclusion and then go looking for facts, observations, and studies that support that conclusion, ignoring context and, often, uncertainty. It’s known as motivated reasoning, in which a bias towards a conclusion that conforms to what a person already believes leads that person to overvalue information that supports that belief and undervalue disconfirmatory information.

We all engage in motivated reasoning to one degree or another; it’s human nature. One of the main differences between most people and scientists and skeptics is that scientists and skeptics know motivated reasoning exists and make an active effort not to engage in it. It’s not easy, either, as evidenced by the lack of difficulty I have in thinking of scientists (and, yes, some skeptics) who have come to conclusions that appear to be based more in motivated reasoning than on an actual evaluation of the state of existing evidence. It’s easy to name the scientists who have let motivated reasoning guide them down the path of pseudoscience and quackery. All I have to do is to recount the list of physicians and scientists who have gone antivaccine (or become sympathetic to antivaccine viewpoints): Andrew Wakefield, Bob Sears, Kelly Brogan, Paul Thomas, James Lyons-Weiler, Christopher Shaw, Christopher Exley, Judy Mikovits, Theresa Deisher, and many others.

Basically, like any lay person, when faced with beliefs that they wanted to embrace, “America’s Frontline Doctors” engaged in motivated reasoning and sought out observations, evidence, and cherry-picked studies to give them a reason to support the belief, regardless of whether science actually did support the belief or not. Worse, they very intentionally used their status as physicians to promote those beliefs and persuade lay people to believe them, too. It worked to some extent, as well, although it would have worked a lot better if “America’s Frontline Doctors” had left Dr. Immanuel out of their membership. Her history of claims involving alien DNA and that gynecological problems like cysts and endometriosis are in fact caused by people having sex in their dreams with demons and witches led the hashtag #DemonSperm to trend on Twitter and provided an easy approach to debunking and discrediting her and, thus, the entire group. (It didn’t help that she called doctors doubting hydroxychloroquine fake doctors and the negative studies of the drug “fake studies,” all while accusing those same doctors of being like the “good Germans, the good Nazis” who “watched Jews get killed” and didn’t speak up.) Indeed, it wasn’t long before Dr. Hamilton sent out an open letter to the parents of his patients disavowing Dr. Immanuel’s hydroxychloroquine claims and the claims of other doctors that facemasks are of “no value” in combatting the spread of COVID-19.

There once was a time when it was possible for people without formal education in science to make observations about the universe and formulate them into laws and hypotheses that characterize reality. That time ended a long time. The reason is that science builds on what was discovered. The more it builds, the more background information there is that has to be mastered in order to be able to make useful contributions. Although there can be lots of controversy in science, certain fundamental things are agreed upon because overwhelming evidence has led scientists to provisionally accept them as correct. For instance, you can’t suddenly posit a “theory” that says that atoms aren’t made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons, because there is a massive body of evidence that has led to a scientific consensus that they are, in fact, made up of such particles, whatever scientists choose to name them. At least, you can’t do it and have scientists take you seriously unless you can produce evidence that is at least compelling enough to call such well-established science into doubt. Cranks don’t acknowledge this and, through arrogance, think that they alone are able to see what all of science isn’t. As a result, they tend to be upset that science doesn’t recognize their apparent genius.

The problem with “doing your own research” is that rarely does a lay person (or even a physician or scientist venturing too far outside of his area of expertise) have the background knowledge and skillset to be confident of avoiding crossing that line, whether intentionally or not. It’s not so much that you “must not do your own research.” It’s that you really need to understand that you probably can’t “do your own research” and that the conclusions you reach “doing your own research” are highly likely to be more in line with your prior beliefs than scientifically correct.