Coronavirus

[Mr._Clark]

My thoughts exactly. I am baffled by the idea that expressing contrarian opinions on this subject is desirable. We are struggling with how to handle a lethal and highly contagious viral pandemic among a US population of more than 330 million. When these opinions fly in the face of widely accepted scientific, medical, & public health practices, I find them to be no better than sabotage – politically-motivated sabotage. They should not be tolerated as part of the give & take that comes with free speech.

Fact checking has its place, of course, but when people are attempting to flood the zone with sh*t my instinct is to flood it with facts.

 

[Mr._Clark]

This is somewhat interesting:

>>>Covid: South Africa makes its own version of Moderna vaccine . . .

Scientists in South Africa have made a copy of the Moderna Covid vaccine, a move which they say could help boost vaccination rates across Africa. . . .
The vast majority of mRNA vaccines have gone to wealthy countries and there have been sketchy plans to make these on African soil.

But because Moderna said it wouldn't enforce the patent rights on its vaccine, scientists have been able to reverse engineer it via a special World Health Organization-funded hub in Cape Town.<<<

Covid: South Africa makes its own version of Moderna vaccine

Scientists there say it could help increase very low vaccination rates across Africa.

www.bbc.com

 

[GO-NAD!]

I found this exchange amusing.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1489526912619790337

 

[Swerd]

I found this exchange amusing.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1489526912619790337

A British version of Joe Rogan. More polite, but still an a$$hole .

He attempts to 'flood the field with BS' – and does an inept job of it.

 

[Dan]

Dan, our team used to have a select category of colleagues that we noted were wrong more often than by chance. I think those Mikado mentioned are in that category for a dead cert!

We all know a few like that. Too many are in my specialty or worse, they won't commit to any diagnosis. The radiologist's favorite bush is the hedge after all. I quit my first group because they couldn't make a correct call on . they didn't understand my question, let alone the answer. anything especially business decisions. If I wanted a second opinion. I do love working with really good intensivists, they really know their stuff.

 

[Mikado463]

My thoughts exactly. I am baffled by the idea that expressing contrarian opinions on this subject is desirable. We are struggling with how to handle a lethal and highly contagious viral pandemic among a US population of more than 330 million. When these opinions fly in the face of widely accepted scientific, medical, & public health practices, I find them to be no better than sabotage – politically-motivated sabotage. They should not be tolerated as part of the give & take that comes with free speech.

and while I see your point and to a point, I agree with you. The notion of your last sentence is a stretch IMO.
My posting of that podcast wether you like it or not does in fact reflect a viewpoint of a lot of Americans unfortunately, but not mine. I have followed what you and a handful of others have stated and I'm in your court on the matter. As for the political ramifications, I don't think that surprises anyone.

 

[Mr._Clark]

This appears to be a major effort to identify existing drugs that might be effective against COVID. Hopefully they are successful. It would be nice to have more arrows in the quiver.

>>>>Research collaboration launched to focus on repurposing existing anti-viral therapies to treat COVID-19 . . .
The research project will initially screen 138 drugs with known antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 to assess and identify combinations that enhance their antiviral potential. The most effective combinations will be presented to national organisations including the UK Antiviral Task Force and UK-CTAP, evidencing the need to bring the treatments forward to clinical trials phase. . . . ‘Successful repurposing of existing drugs, either alone or in combination will greatly accelerate this process. Therefore, our project will seek to repurpose drugs that are already in clinical trials or approved for use and which demonstrated some antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2.<<<

Research collaboration launched to focus on repurposing existing anti-viral therapies to treat COVID-19 | University of Oxford

A new £1.6m collaborative project has been launched to rapidly identify new treatments for COVID-19.

www.ox.ac.uk

 

[Swerd]

This appears to be a major effort to identify existing drugs that might be effective against COVID. Hopefully they are successful. It would be nice to have more arrows in the quiver.

>>>>Research collaboration launched to focus on repurposing existing anti-viral therapies to treat COVID-19 . . .
The research project will initially screen 138 drugs with known antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 to assess and identify combinations that enhance their antiviral potential. The most effective combinations will be presented to national organisations including the UK Antiviral Task Force and UK-CTAP, evidencing the need to bring the treatments forward to clinical trials phase. . . . ‘Successful repurposing of existing drugs, either alone or in combination will greatly accelerate this process. Therefore, our project will seek to repurpose drugs that are already in clinical trials or approved for use and which demonstrated some antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2.<<<

Research collaboration launched to focus on repurposing existing anti-viral therapies to treat COVID-19 | University of Oxford

A new £1.6m collaborative project has been launched to rapidly identify new treatments for COVID-19.

www.ox.ac.uk

I thought that type of search was already done during the first year of the pandemic, while the vaccines were still being developed and tested. It was my impression that no useful existing anti-viral drugs were found that could be repurposed for SARS-CoV-2.

However, two molecular targets, the virus's protease, and RNA polymerase enzymes, were rapidly identified in SARS-CoV-2 because they had been previously shown as critical points in the life-cycles of other viruses. Drugs that block their action have been useful for treating many other pathogenic viruses. Those existing drugs didn't work well enough against SARS-CoV-2, but new drugs were quickly developed that can work better. I think of them as first generation versions of a class of these drugs. Second generation versions will be found that work better, or are better tolerated by people with Covid-19. I imagine that the drug companies are now hard at work on that. And yes, that includes drug combinations that don't work alone, but do work when taken together, in synergy.

I don't oppose a continuing effort at searching for & repurposing existing anti-viral drugs. During that first year of the pandemic, before any vaccines were available, there might have been too much haste. The scientists at Oxford certainly know what they're doing. But is it the best use of their time and resources?

 

[Mr._Clark]

I thought that type of search was already done during the first year of the pandemic, while the vaccines were still being developed and tested. It was my impression that no useful existing anti-viral drugs were found that could be repurposed for SARS-CoV-2.

However, two molecular targets, the virus's protease, and RNA polymerase enzymes, were rapidly identified in SARS-CoV-2 because they had been previously shown as critical points in the life-cycles of other viruses. Drugs that block their action have been useful for treating many other pathogenic viruses. Those existing drugs didn't work well enough against SARS-CoV-2, but new drugs were quickly developed that can work better. I think of them as first generation versions of a class of these drugs. Second generation versions will be found that work better, or are better tolerated by people with Covid-19. I imagine that the drug companies are now hard at work on that. And yes, that includes drug combinations that don't work alone, but do work when taken together, in synergy.

I don't oppose a continuing effort at searching for & repurposing existing anti-viral drugs. During that first year of the pandemic, before any vaccines were available, there might have been too much haste. The scientists at Oxford certainly know what they're doing. But is it the best use of their time and resources?

As I see it, the existence of these types of ongoing studies undermine the "medical deep state" conspiracy theories.

>>>"It [ivermectin] fits into the bigger narrative about the so-called 'medical deep state' [in which] scientists, pharmaceutical and political elites have an interest in making people use more expensive, experimental drugs" to increase the profits of the pharmaceutical industry, Yang says. "And they have an interest in not showing the public the cheap, widely available drugs that can supposedly cure COVID-19." (Ingraham has labeled Dr. Anthony Fauci as part of the "medical deep state.")<<<

How ivermectin became the new focus of the anti-vaccine movement

Scientists are still studying whether the deworming medicine could have any effect on COVID-19. But the frenzy over the drug has far more to do with politics than science. Here's how that happened.

www.npr.org

It appears to me that it is extremely rare to successfully repurpose drugs, but the main reason seems to be that existing drugs almost never work for something completely different, not because there's a medical deep state suppressing research (having said that, I do wonder if there should more financial incentives for repurposing drugs).

Is it the best use of time and resources? I'm not sure. Sadly, when Oxford calls me and asks for my thoughts on it I will be unable to provide much guidance.

 

[Swerd]

As I see it, the existence of these types of ongoing studies undermine the "medical deep state" conspiracy theories.

I've had more success at talking to myself, than trying to reason with conspiracy theory advocates. I'm more likely to listen to the guy who's talking.

That term "medical deep state" is straight out of Faux News. I've always been impressed by Anthony Fauci's ability to keep a straight face when he's asked about that.

It appears to me that it is extremely rare to successfully repurpose drugs, but the main reason seems to be that existing drugs almost never work for something completely different, not because there's a medical deep state suppressing research (having said that, I do wonder if there should more financial incentives for repurposing drugs).

In my experience from the cancer field, I'd have to agree. It is rare to discover a new medical use for a drug that was already approved by the FDA for completely different purpose. That idea was attractive in the first year of the pandemic only because it wouldn't require the usual full scrutiny from the FDA.

A rare example of such a drug is Thalidomide. It was used in the 1960s to treat nausea in pregnant women – resulting in disastrous birth defects. Surprisingly, it has been resurrected to treat certain kinds of lymphoma.

 

[Dude#1279435]

I'll post it here but realize I may be opening a can of worms. I think the problem with the analysis is its an economic study, not science. The risk to filling up hospitals even more in the short-term etc. Late or earlier lockdowns I don't think it would've changed the decision for lockdowns. To slow activity till a vax arrives. The social and political repercussions of having done nothing. We exclude papers which analyze the effect of early lockdowns in contrast to later lockdowns. Ok. Why? (Campbell even concludes it wasn't worth the risk.)

 

[Dude#1279435]

Here's the link if you'd like to do some research for yourself...

A Literature Review and Meta Analysis of The Effects of Lockdowns On COVID 19 Mortality | PDF | Pandemic | Health Sciences

A Literature Review and Meta Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on COVID 19 Mortality

www.scribd.com

 

[SithZedi]

Yes, Dr. Campbell has been accused of Covid Misinformation but I personally think that's a bit unfair. My UK friends told me about him some time ago. His YT videos are informative and his dry delivery can be quite amusing. As always, listen and make up your own mind.

The below is an interesting clip of a recent show with him pushing back on the BBC going after him recently on Ivermectin. He makes some interesting points on the safety of the human use of it for what it is currently approved for by the FDA. He shreds the BBC line by line. Quite amusing.

 

[davidscott]

How Canadian Truckers Became the Symbol of Vaccine Resistance

A GoFundMe campaign for the truckers has raised more than $7.1m from over 112,000 donors.

www.newsweek.com

Now this "freedom convoy" is disrupting daily life. Just like the antifa protests in the US last year. At some point a protest becomes criminal.

 

[Swerd]

Yes, Dr. Campbell has been accused of Covid Misinformation but I personally think that's a bit unfair.

Campbell has no background in treating infectious viral diseases, or in any kind of scientific research. His entire background has been in nursing. His experience came from nursing in emergency departments (A&E, Accident & Emergency as the British call it). He later earned a PhD in nursing education before becoming a university nursing educator.

In 2008, Campbell began a YouTube channel, providing educational lectures on health science and nursing. Until 2020, his videos received about several thousand views each. With the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, however, his YouTube channel began to receive significantly more traffic. He shifted focus from nursing education lectures to major issues related to the pandemic. Much of this increased viewership was among viewers in the US.

In November 2021, Campbell had produced at least two videos that both attracted increased views as well as much criticism for being misinformation. In one video he speculated that wide use of ivermectin in Japan might have been responsible for a decline in Covid-19 cases there. No evidence was provided to support that idea.

And in the other video, Campbell quoted from a non-reviewed journal abstract where the author, Steven Gundry, claimed that mRNA vaccines might cause heart problems. This claim was taken by US anti-vaccers as evidence that Covid-19 vaccinations would lead to a wave of heart attacks among the vaccinated. Again, no evidence ever appeared to support this exaggerated claim.

Because of these debunked claims, John Campbell's videos have been panned as misinformation.

All the above info appeared in a Wikipedia link:

John Campbell (YouTuber) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[SithZedi]

Campbell has no background in treating infectious viral diseases, or in any kind of scientific research. His entire background has been in nursing. His experience came from nursing in emergency departments (A&E, Accident & Emergency as the British call it). He later earned a PhD in nursing education before becoming a university nursing educator.

In 2008, Campbell began a YouTube channel, providing educational lectures on health science and nursing. Until 2020, his videos received about several thousand views each. With the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, however, his YouTube channel began to receive significantly more traffic. He shifted focus from nursing education lectures to major issues related to the pandemic. Much of this increased viewership was among viewers in the US.

In November 2021, Campbell had produced at least two videos that both attracted increased views as well as much criticism for being misinformation. In one video he speculated that wide use of ivermectin in Japan might have been responsible for a decline in Covid-19 cases there. No evidence was provided to support that idea.

And in the other video, Campbell quoted from a non-reviewed journal abstract where the author, Steven Gundry, claimed that mRNA vaccines might cause heart problems. This claim was taken by US anti-vaccers as evidence that Covid-19 vaccinations would lead to a wave of heart attacks among the vaccinated. Again, no evidence ever appeared to support this exaggerated claim.

Because of these debunked claims, John Campbell's videos have been panned as misinformation.

All the above info appeared in a Wikipedia link:

John Campbell (YouTuber) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sorry, I don't take Wikipedia to be a reliable source. I will use it occasionally for a quick reference but that's about it.
If you have another source, I am all eyes.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Sorry, I don't take Wikipedia to be a reliable source. I will use it occasionally for a quick reference but that's about it.
If you have another source, I am all eyes.

What source do you have that he is correct and reliable source of information?
Has he published any peer papers on this stuff? Or part of a group effort to research and publish?
You must have a reason for accepting what he has to say, no?

 

[SithZedi]

What source do you have that he is correct and reliable source of information?
Has he published any peer papers on this stuff? Or part of a group effort to research and publish?
You must have a reason for accepting what he has to say, no?

I didn't say that "he is correct and reliable". I did say he's informative, amusing, and interesting. I have not decided on whether he is right or wrong. I await further evidence of tests being conducted and I am open to read all results from all sources. I am hopeful something positive comes out of it. The use of vaccines on the mitigating the effects of Covid and as many drugs, (retasking or new) as we can find to treat it, can only be of benefit.
Don't think that's unreasonable.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I didn't say that "he is correct and reliable". I did say he's informative, amusing, and interesting. I have not decided on whether he is right or wrong. I await further evidence of tests being conducted and I am open to read all results from all sources. I am hopeful something positive comes out of it. The use of vaccines on the mitigating the effects of Covid and as many drugs, (retasking or new) as we can find to treat it, can only be of benefit.
Don't think that's unreasonable.

Yes, but I would think if one is informative, he has the correct information. And if he is consistent, then he would be reliable.

Also, will you be able to know when you have reliable and consistent answers? Or, just what you may want and like.

 

[Mr._Clark]

I rarely watch Campbell’s videos but I noticed a day or two ago that he posted one entitled “Ivermectin disappoints in India” and I watched that one. When I looked a few minutes ago it looks like he changed the title to “Discussions with a pulmonologist in India.” The video appears to be identical and it includes a section in which he asks the doctor about ivermectin and the doctor responds that they had been using it but they quit because there wasn’t evidence supporting it. Campbell followed up and asked him if it was his impression that ivermectin was helpful and the doctor said no. I got the impression Campbell was trying to lead him towards saying something positive about ivermectin but the doctor wasn’t biting.

Campbell at least posted the video, but the apparent title change of the video strikes me as a bit curious, especially given the titles of his prior video trumpeting his allegedly victorious take down of the ivermectin fact checkers.

Edit: It appears to me that I may have seen the title "Ivermectin disappoints in India" on the following link to Campbell's video, and I'm not sure if Campbell ever used that title.

Ivermectin disappoints in India – ACN News

www.acn.news