Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Spartan
With my own daughter, I noticed through that age that she suppressed a lot of her own unique wit and individuality (which I cherished). I asked her about it and she said that people at school were just mean and it was easiest to just blend in. It kind of broke my heart to hear this from her, but I thought about it and had to reluctantly agree with her. All I could do was assure her that somewhere around being a HS Jr to college, her unique perspective would be viewed favorably as creative individuality (and, happily it did work out that way).
Maybe I should have, instead, encouraged her to swim against the current, but I have seen how the middle school kids (especially girls) will pile on!
Interesting that you mentioned that about your daughter. A number of years ago, when I ran the neighborhood swim team, I got in a long conversation with a neighbor about daughters. My daughter was in 7th grade, and his was in 8th grade. He suggested a book, which I got & read, Reviving Ophelia by Mary Pipher. It opened my eyes. I'm glad to see it's still in print.
I know your daughter is older now, and safely past that vulnerable age. But if anyone reading this has a daughter, age 10-14, and if they think they remember what it was like back when they were young. They should run to get a copy of this book.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Full Audioholic
.

Interesting. There seems to be some evidence that other viruses can cause psychiatric disorders:

>>>Prusty and his team suspected the human herpesviruses HHV-6A and HHV-6B to play a key role in the genesis of psychiatric disorders. So they studied two of the largest human brain biopsy cohorts from Stanley Medical Research Institute (USA) and what they found confirmed their assumption: "We were able to find active infection of HHV-6 predominantly within Purkinje cells of human cerebellum in bipolar and major depressive disorder patients," Prusty sums up the central result of their study. The results show for the first time that type HHV-6 viruses are capable of infecting neurons and possibly causing cognitive disturbances leading to mood disorder.

According to the scientists, the study disproves the belief that viruses which lie "dormant" and hidden in organs and tissues never cause any disease. "Studies like ours prove this thinking as wrong," Prusty says and he cites another study which shows that Alzheimer's disease can also be caused by human herpesvirus 6A.<<<



However, some other suspected links between viral infection and mental illness have apparently failed to hold up:

"Our results argue strongly against a role for BDV in the pathogenesis of these psychiatric disorders."



Of course, absence of proof is not proof of absence.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Full Audioholic
My google research suggests the effects of COVID-19 (direct from the virus and indirect due to immune system reaction) on the human brain are not well documented as of right now:

>>>The woman had seen lions and monkeys in her house. She was becoming disoriented and aggressive towards others, and was convinced that her husband was an impostor. She was in her mid-50s — decades older than the age at which psychosis typically develops — and had no psychiatric history. What she did have, however, was COVID-19. Hers was one of the first known cases of someone developing psychosis after contracting the disease. . . .

“It seems to be incredibly rare that you get viral central nervous system infection,” Michael says. That means many of the problems clinicians are seeing are probably a result of the body’s immune system fighting the virus.

Still, this might not be true in all cases, which means that researchers will need to identify biomarkers that can reliably distinguish between a viral brain infection and immune activity. That, for now, means more clinical research, post mortems and physiological studies.<<<

 
S

SimplyEpic

Audioholic
I don't believe it is because of a specific political party but more to the tune of massive problems with obesity and other health issues escalated by a 2 party political system that is dividing the country with it's own goals in mind and neither truly cares about anything other than how do they keep themselves elected. Everything is about trends to guide the sheeple which keeps the parties in power. They forgot they are supposed to be public servants some time ago and made a career fleecing the masses.
 
Old Onkyo

Old Onkyo

Senior Audioholic
And the idiot students had COVID parties because of Trump? Get a grip! People are choosing to not wear masks because of their own ignorance- if they take his word for anything, it's their own fault.
Is that What I said???
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Overlord
Is that What I said???
Your reply to the comment about 200K deaths was "Yea but, you gotta admit....America is great.....again.:(;):(;):( "- what would most people infer from it, other than blaming Trump? One person can't be blamed for the total death count, even though so many want to blame someone.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Overlord
I hadn't even thought of cyberbullying, but I agree with you that the victims usually do not have a good grounded core. Maybe because it attracts the most attention, but when I think of cyberbully suicides, I think of middle school girls.
With my own daughter, I noticed through that age that she suppressed a lot of her own unique wit and individuality (which I cherished). I asked her about it and she said that people at school were just mean and it was easiest to just blend in. It kind of broke my heart to hear this from her, but I thought about it and had to reluctantly agree with her. All I could do was assure her that somewhere around being a HS Jr to college, her unique perspective would be viewed favorably as creative individuality (and, happily it did work out that way).
Maybe I should have, instead, encouraged her to swim against the current, but I have seen how the middle school kids (especially girls) will pile on!
It is interesting, I generally consider women better enlightened than men at matters of society/community, but through middle school, they seem to experiment with some appalling extremes!
There's almost no group who's as concerned with being perceived as "one of the cool kids" as high schoolers. I know someone whose daughter is dealing with some problems and she told her parents that she had considered suicide- It's not her parents who are the cause, it was an event that occurred over a year ago that has created the problems. She was taught to think for herself and her opinion of many of her HS teachers wasn't very high, but she bided her time and is in college. Unfortunately, much of what goes on at that university goes against her ideas, so I think it's just a matter of time until she transfers to another school.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Full Audioholic
Here's a BBC report about possible vaccine challenge trials in the UK. Nothing definitive has been announced, but the recent news reports on this topic lead me to believe there's a good chance there will be some form of challenge trials. I cannot predict the future, so this is speculation on my part.

>>>The UK could be the first country in the world to carry out Covid "challenge trials" - where healthy volunteers are deliberately infected with coronavirus to test possible vaccines.

It is understood the studies - first reported by the Financial Times - would be conducted in London.

The UK government said it was holding discussions about developing a vaccine through such "human challenge studies".

No contracts have yet been signed, the BBC understands.<<<


 
S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
And I suppose ALL Democrats are acting responsibly? I mean, other than the rioters.....
If you are going to be honest with yourself, you will admit that those who identify as Democrats are definitely taking COVID-19 more seriously and are acting more responsibly than Republicans on the whole. That is just a fact. I think that any sensible Republican would admit as much, insofar as there are any sensible Republicans left. One side of the aisle sought to politicize the virus to bolster economic conditions to improve re-election chances of the president, and subsequently ended up killed tens of thousands of Americans needlessly.

As for rioters, if you are saying that looters and rioters are civically engaged Democrats instead of just opportunistic criminals, you are lying to yourself yet again.
 
Old Onkyo

Old Onkyo

Senior Audioholic
Your reply to the comment about 200K deaths was "Yea but, you gotta admit....America is great.....again.:(;):(;):( "- what would most people infer from it, other than blaming Trump? One person can't be blamed for the total death count, even though so many want to blame someone.
You would be wrong to draw that conclusion... but I understand ..my point is the 200,000 deaths don’t really matter as long as Trump supporters think they are getting what they want. They will get what they want. I guarantee it.

I will graciously accept your apology for mischaracterizing my simple statement. I know it wasn’t your intention.

I am curious, how would you know what most people would infer from my statement? I read your statement to be rhetorical, but I like you, could be wrong....
 
M

Mr._Clark

Full Audioholic
If you are going to be honest with yourself, you will admit that those who identify as Democrats are definitely taking COVID-19 more seriously and are acting more responsibly than Republicans on the whole. That is just a fact. I think that any sensible Republican would admit as much, insofar as there are any sensible Republicans left. One side of the aisle sought to politicize the virus to bolster economic conditions to improve re-election chances of the president, and subsequently ended up killed tens of thousands of Americans needlessly.

As for rioters, if you are saying that looters and rioters are civically engaged Democrats instead of just opportunistic criminals, you are lying to yourself yet again.
What is your point?
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Overlord
You would be wrong to draw that conclusion... but I understand ..my point is the 200,000 deaths don’t really matter as long as Trump supporters think they are getting what they want. They will get what they want. I guarantee it.

I will graciously accept your apology for mischaracterizing my simple statement. I know it wasn’t your intention.

I am curious, how would you know what most people would infer from my statement? I read your statement to be rhetorical, but I like you, could be wrong....
T uses MAGA as a slogan and by referring to that in your comment, I would think many would see it as a slam. I didn't mean 'almost all' when I wrote 'most'.

Anyway, I don't think it would be fair to blame anyone for all of the deaths when people have acted so irresponsibly, including the governors of the states that send people infected with COVID to nursing homes. Doing that doesn't even look good on paper but I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time- sending sick people to live with people who won't live long anyway? Sure, why not?

Stay well.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Overlord
If you are going to be honest with yourself, you will admit that those who identify as Democrats are definitely taking COVID-19 more seriously and are acting more responsibly than Republicans on the whole. That is just a fact. I think that any sensible Republican would admit as much, insofar as there are any sensible Republicans left. One side of the aisle sought to politicize the virus to bolster economic conditions to improve re-election chances of the president, and subsequently ended up killed tens of thousands of Americans needlessly.

As for rioters, if you are saying that looters and rioters are civically engaged Democrats instead of just opportunistic criminals, you are lying to yourself yet again.
I fail to see how Democrats are taking it more seriously, on the whole, when the highest concentration of Democrats are in many inner cities. I do agree that many Republicans are acting stupidly, but if you really observe people, you'll see a wide range who aren't wearing a mask or are wearing it incorrectly. I see this all day, every day.

WRT the comment about rioters, we need a sarcasm button.
 
Verdinut

Verdinut

Audioholic Ninja

And if we take vitamin D supplementation, it is recommended that we also consume Vitamin K2 supplements:


Some companies market Vitamin D3 supplements which also contain Vitamin K2. This is what I take on a daily basis.
 
Last edited:
Old Onkyo

Old Onkyo

Senior Audioholic
T uses MAGA as a slogan and by referring to that in your comment, I would think many would see it as a slam. I didn't mean 'almost all' when I wrote 'most'.

Anyway, I don't think it would be fair to blame anyone for all of the deaths when people have acted so irresponsibly, including the governors of the states that send people infected with COVID to nursing homes. Doing that doesn't even look good on paper but I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time- sending sick people to live with people who won't live long anyway? Sure, why not?

Stay well.
Where did I blame anyone?
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Spartan
It's time to talk about Interim Analysis in the clinical trials of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Most all large Phase 3 clinical trials, and quite a few smaller Phase 2 trials, I've known had Interim Analysis built into their design. It allows the trial to be temporarily stopped at some predefined midpoint. In trials of cancer drugs that I knew well, the stopping point was usually when roughly 40-50% of patients had been treated and evaluated. In vaccine trials, most of the volunteers were quickly vaccinated. Interim analysis happens when a given number of "events" occurred – where the event is a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.

One of the trials recently announced some protocol features that will be part of its Interim Analysis. I can't find that news article, so I'll rely on memory. After about 150 infections occurred, the trial's Data & Safety Monitoring Board met and looked at unblinded data for those 150 cases. They could see how many infections occurred on the experimental SARS-Cov-2 vaccine arm and how many were on the control or placebo* arm.

Obviously, they don't expect zero infections on the experimental arm and all the infections on the placebo arm. And, they hope they don't see it work out to about 50% infections on each arm. The goals were already written into the trial's protocol, stating how many infections on the experimental arm would result in stopping the trial early for futility, for successful efficacy, or would allow the trial to continue. It is rare for a trial to stop early because the Interim Analysis shows success. But this depends on high high or how low they set the bar.

In the case of one of the vaccines, if I remember correctly, the bar was set for success if the placebo arm has at least 50% more infections than the experimental arm. For 150 infections, if at least 90 were on the placebo arm, and no more than 60 were on the experimental arm, it could indicate an early sign of success. (Please note, I'm not certain I remember these numbers correctly. I'm only trying to explain how Interim Analysis proceeds.) On the other hand, if infections were roughly equal on both arms, it would indicate the experimental vaccine offered no protection.

My point here is that these very large trials don't require that results must reflect all the people on the trial. If, and only if, enough people are protected from viral infection during the Interim Analysis, that could be considered good enough reason to begin widespread public vaccinations. The trial would continue to evaluate safety & efficacy of all 30,000 people on the trial. But the vaccine would be given temporary approval, pending the final results of the trial.

All the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine trials have Interim Analysis built into the trial protocols. The details of where the bar is set may vary, but all the trials all have this feature. It really isn't necessary to deliberately infect vaccinated people to see the results.

* Instead of true placebo, people on the control arm were given an vaccine unrelated to SARS-CoV-2, such as the DTaP vaccine against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis. It's considered unethical to inject a blank placebo when it's well known that immunity against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis wears off most people after about 10 years.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Full Audioholic
It's time to talk about Interim Analysis in the clinical trials of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Most all large Phase 3 clinical trials, and quite a few smaller Phase 2 trials, I've known had Interim Analysis built into their design. It allows the trial to be temporarily stopped at some predefined midpoint. In trials of cancer drugs that I knew well, the stopping point was usually when roughly 40-50% of patients had been treated and evaluated. In vaccine trials, most of the volunteers were quickly vaccinated. Interim analysis happens when a given number of "events" occurred – where the event is a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.

One of the trials recently announced some protocol features that will be part of its Interim Analysis. I can't find that news article, so I'll rely on memory. After about 150 infections occurred, the trial's Data & Safety Monitoring Board met and looked at unblinded data for those 150 cases. They could see how many infections occurred on the experimental SARS-Cov-2 vaccine arm and how many were on the control or placebo* arm.

Obviously, they don't expect zero infections on the experimental arm and all the infections on the placebo arm. And, they hope they don't see it work out to about 50% infections on each arm. The goals were already written into the trial's protocol, stating how many infections on the experimental arm would result in stopping the trial early for futility, for successful efficacy, or would allow the trial to continue. It is rare for a trial to stop early because the Interim Analysis shows success. But this depends on high high or how low they set the bar.

In the case of one of the vaccines, if I remember correctly, the bar was set for success if the placebo arm has at least 50% more infections than the experimental arm. For 150 infections, if at least 90 were on the placebo arm, and no more than 60 were on the experimental arm, it could indicate an early sign of success. (Please note, I'm not certain I remember these numbers correctly. I'm only trying to explain how Interim Analysis proceeds.) On the other hand, if infections were roughly equal on both arms, it would indicate the experimental vaccine offered no protection.

My point here is that these very large trials don't require that results must reflect all the people on the trial. If, and only if, enough people are protected from viral infection during the Interim Analysis, that could be considered good enough reason to begin widespread public vaccinations. The trial would continue to evaluate safety & efficacy of all 30,000 people on the trial. But the vaccine would be given temporary approval, pending the final results of the trial.

All the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine trials have Interim Analysis built into the trial protocols. The details of where the bar is set may vary, but all the trials all have this feature. It really isn't necessary to deliberately infect vaccinated people to see the results.

* Instead of true placebo, people on the control arm were given an vaccine unrelated to SARS-CoV-2, such as the DTaP vaccine against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis. It's considered unethical to inject a blank placebo when it's well known that immunity against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis wears off most people after about 10 years.
Interesting. I found one article that touches on this topic:

 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Spartan
I searched for "Interim analysis vaccine clinical trial protocol" and found these articles:

The first article is a good summary of the various trial designs and it explains how vaccine efficacy will be determined. The 3rd paragraph shows why I believe that shortcuts, such as a direct viral challenges, do not provide as much useful information as large trials can. If you only read one article, make it this one:
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/09/21/the-vaccine-protocols

The next two articles come right out and criticize these trials because they think they define very easily achieved endpoints for success. I disagree with that thinking. It suggests they aren't familiar with other clinical trial designs in general. And it definitely indicates they aren't familiar with vaccine trials when there is a clear unmet need for a vaccine – a true world-wide emergency. If there were other effective treatments or vaccines available, the bar for efficacy could be raised to a higher level. Nonetheless, the Forbes article does provide another good explanation of the Interim Analyses for these trials. That's why I included it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2020/09/23/covid-19-vaccine-protocols-reveal-that-trials-are-designed-to-succeed/#c18201524799

The opinion piece in the Washington Post is written by William Haseltine, a well known virologist. He seems to share the opinion in the Forbes article, that these vaccine trials have set the bar very low. I included his article because this is a controversial subject. My own opinion is that we need a vaccine as soon as possible. To use a baseball analogy: don't swing for the fences, flying out in the process, when several base hits can do. A partially effective vaccine right now is better than raising the bar so high such that the vaccine fails it's trial.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/22/beware-covid-19-vaccine-trials-designed-succeed-start/
You can't open the Washington Post link without a subscription.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts


newsletter
  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top