Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
@Mr._Clark , @NINaudio , @Danzilla31 and @Dude#1279435

Thanks for your efforts at explaining why that Israeli study is so misleading. Paying attention only to the calculated percentages, and not the raw numbers, can mislead. Examples:
  • Two analyses showed that never-infected but vaccinated people were 6 times and 13 times more likely to get infected than unvaccinated people who had previously been infected with coronavirus.

  • That 13-fold increased risk of infection in one of those analyses was based on just 238 infections in the vaccinated population, less than 1.5% of the more than 16,000 people, versus 19 reinfections among a similar number of people who once had Covid-19 disease.

  • In another analysis of 32,000 people, the risk of developing symptomatic Covid-19 was 27 times higher among the vaccinated. The risk of hospitalization was 8 times higher for the vaccinated.

  • However, the real numbers compared for infections and other events were actually very small. The higher hospitalization rate in the 32,000-person analysis was based on just 8 hospitalizations in the vaccinated group, and 1 in the previously infected group.
Are the conclusions warranted by the numbers? The numbers of people in those studies were indeed large. But were the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups selected to equally represent age, gender, racial groups, prior health or other medical conditions? Were these vaccinated and unvaccinated groups randomly selected, or were they used simply because they were already in the database? Because none of these concerns were met, it is very clear that the conclusions are not warranted by the numbers. As a simple guess, I’d say the numbers of people compared, 32,000, might have to be at least 100 (or even 1000) times greater before they could be considered valid.

Do these numbers actually predict what will happen on a much larger scale with many more people? Or is there reasonable doubt caused by significant sampling errors? Although those numbers are real, the conclusions can only be suggestions, not a realistic statistical risk estimated within a reasonable level of confidence. The Israeli study ignored these all of these major concerns.

Proper clinical trial design that permits statistical analysis is essential for useful conclusions to answer questions about the efficacy of vaccines or other medications. All sources of sampling errors must be identified, minimized, or eliminated. The Israeli study made no effort at doing that. The authors readily admitted this. (I strongly suspect the editors of Science insisted that they add those statements before they would publish that report.)

The US FDA does insist that no clinical trials of any kind can be performed in the USA without proper randomized trial design accompanied by statistical analysis. These designs and statistics methods must be submitted and approved in advance of performing the trial, not afterwards as the Israeli study did.

My only direct comment for Auditor55 is that you used bolded, large type in your posts. This can be interpreted as YELLING at us, much the same as using all caps. I can’t tell what your intention was. I also use bold type to visually emphasize certain sentences, words, or phrases. But I try to make it clear why I bolded things, as I did in post #6406.
 
Last edited:
BMXTRIX

BMXTRIX

Audioholic Warlord
While I sincerely believe that everyone has the right to be a douche...
I still think they should be fired when they clearly show that's exactly what they are.

 
davidscott

davidscott

Audioholic Samurai
Here in Florida we have the highest Covid death rate in the nation. More than California or Texas which have higher populations. Just sayin...
 
Darenwh

Darenwh

Audioholic
Here in Florida we have the highest Covid death rate in the nation. More than California or Texas which have higher populations. Just sayin...
Sorry about your state getting stuck with DeSantis in charge…
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic General
Today's "Science by Press Release" report is brought to you courtesy of Merck (that's my way of saying I'm cynical yet hopeful).

>>>WASHINGTON (AP) — Drugmaker Merck said Friday that its experimental COVID-19 pill reduced hospitalizations and deaths by half in people recently infected with the coronavirus and that it would soon ask health officials in the U.S. and around the world to authorize its use. . . . Merck and its partner Ridgeback Biotherapeutics said early results showed patients who received the drug, called molnupiravir, within five days of COVID-19 symptoms had about half the rate of hospitalization and death as patients who received a dummy pill. The study tracked 775 adults with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 who were considered higher risk for severe disease due to health problems such as obesity, diabetes or heart disease. . . . An independent group of medical experts monitoring the trial recommended stopping it early because the interim results were so strong. . . . Earlier study results showed the drug did not benefit patients who were already hospitalized with severe disease. . . . Merck’s pill works by interfering with an enzyme the coronavirus uses to copy its genetic code and reproduce itself. It has shown similar activity against other viruses. <<<

 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic General
Along those same lines, new and improved "Pfizermectin"!
There are numerous ongoing studies involving ivermectin. The FDA (second link below) states that clinical trials of ivermectin are ongoing. "Suspiciously similar" strikes me as an odd choice of words given the numerous ongoing studies of ivermectin.

In terms of the alleged "horse dewormer smear campaign" the product made for horses is actually described as "3 0.21-ounce tubes apple-flavored horses dewormer" on amazon.


Given the numerous ongoing studies of ivermectin, the alleged "horse dewormer smear campaign" seems like a straw man of sorts (having said that, there have been questionable reports concerning ivermectin overdoses)(last link below).

As far as I can tell, the "problem" with ivermectin as of right now is that it has not been definitively shown to be effective against COVID. It does seem to meet the minimum requirements to conduct some studies, but of course many promising drugs don't pan out in trials.

>>>The Cochrane review notes an “urgent need” for good quality randomized controlled trials of the drug, and identifies more than 30 ongoing studies. They include the PRINCIPLE trial run by the University of Oxford and the National Institutes of Health ACTIV-6 study.

“The findings from these studies may help to answer more clearly the question of ivermectin and its effects in treating and preventing COVID-19 in the future,” the authors write.<<<


>>>Currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19. Clinical trials assessing ivermectin tablets for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in people are ongoing.<<<



>>>The National Poison Data System states there were 459 reported cases of ivermectin overdose in the United States in August. Oklahoma-specific ivermectin overdose figures are not available, but the count is unlikely to be a significant factor in hospital bed availability in a state that, per the CDC, currently has a 7-day average of 1,528 Covid-19 hospitalizations.<<<

 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Along those same lines, new and improved "Pfizermectin"!
@John Parks – Your posts on this Coronavirus thread have ranged from juvenile to cynical. If you intend to mislead or disrupt the thread, you've missed badly. However, your last post is so false that I have to respond.
  1. Your post had nothing whatsoever to do with Merck's announcement about a successful clinical trial of molnupiravir.

  2. The new Pfizer anti-viral drug is a viral protease inhibitor, but it shares nothing with the known mechanism of action of ivermectin, a glutamate-gated chloride channel agonist that acts on the nerve and muscle tissue of parasitic worms and insects.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin#Mechanism_of_action
    Ivermectin and its related drugs act by interfering with nerve and muscle function of helminths and insects. The drug binds to glutamate-gated chloride channels that are common to invertebrate nerve and muscle cells. Ivermectin binding pushes these channels open, increasing the flow of chloride ions and hyper-polarizing the cell membranes. This hyperpolarization paralyzes the affected tissue, eventually killing the invertebrate.
  3. That article you cited from 'ZeroHedge' is bogus. It's not a scientific journal, and it seems to have a anti-vaccine and anti-public health agenda. That article cited another publication, which reveals how little you or the people behind ZeroHedge understand about science.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996102/
    I quote from the Abstract of that article:
    Interaction of ivermectin against the key proteins involved in SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis were investigated through molecular docking and molecular dynamic simulation.
    The authors claimed that ivermectin works as a viral protease inhibitor without ever testing it in the lab. Clearly, they had no research funding and couldn't pay for experiments to support their idea. So they resorted to a computer simulation.
If and when you find convincing scientific evidence about the anti-viral activity of ivermection, please tell us about it. Until then, cut it out! Audioholics administrators & moderators please take note.
 
Last edited:
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
An independent group of medical experts monitoring the trial [of Merck's new anti-viral drug molnupiravir] recommended stopping it early because the interim results were so strong.
All large phase 3 drug trials in the US have a built-in interim analysis where the independent Drug Monitoring Board can decide to stop the trial early due to:
  • Safety reasons (the new drug is notably toxic)
  • Lack of efficacy (as pre-defined in the trial's protocol)
  • Noteworthy efficacy (also pre-defined in the protocol – occurs rarely)
So, it's very good news that molnupiravir was that effective.
 
John Parks

John Parks

Audioholic Field Marshall
@John Parks – Your posts on this Coronavirus thread have ranged from juvenile to cynical. If you intend to mislead or disrupt the thread, you've missed badly. However, your last post is so false that I have to respond.
  1. Your post had nothing whatsoever to do with Merck's announcement about a successful clinical trial of molnupiravir.

  2. The new Pfizer anti-viral drug is a viral protease inhibitor, but it shares nothing with the known mechanism of action of ivermectin, a glutamate-gated chloride channel agonist that acts on the nerve and muscle tissue of parasitic worms and insects.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin#Mechanism_of_action


  3. That article you cited from 'ZeroHedge' is bogus. It's not a scientific journal, and it seems to have a anti-vaccine and anti-public health agenda. That article cited another publication, which reveals how little you or the people behind ZeroHedge understand about science.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996102/
    I quote from the Abstract of that article:

    The authors claimed that ivermectin works as a viral protease inhibitor without ever testing it in the lab. Clearly, they had no research funding and couldn't pay for experiments to support their idea. So they resorted to a computer simulation.
If and when you find convincing scientific evidence about the anti-viral activity of ivermection, please tell us about it. Until then, cut it out! Audioholics administrators & moderators please take note.
From Post #6381: "In that sense, Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, and Pennsyltucky (just to name a few) are no different than Bangladesh." Is this from convincing scientific evidence or your opinion? Are opinions not allowed or just opinions with which you agree? There are numerous posts in this thread that are from dubious news sources, quite a few of them seemingly celebrating the misfortune and/or "ignorance" of others. Should the AH admins and mods be alerted of those posts since they were not generated in a scientific journal?

You seem convinced you know what I do or do not "understand about science". Must be nice to be on that level of enlightenment.

I'll bow out of this thread, but I do thank you (and others) for the incredible amounts of time, effort and information that went into it.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Today (Oct 3) I saw the latest graphs of the numbers of new Covid-19 cases. It certainly looks like the new cases are dropping from the high in September. I wish the drop-off was steeper, but we've seen with the earlier peaks that drop-off is slower than the increase before the peak. I hope the 7-day averages continue to drop until as low or lower than they were before last June.
1633280201168.png


And here is the graph of deaths due to Covid-19. They too may be dropping, but slower than for new cases (above). The total deaths will soon be greater than 700,000.
1633280541939.png
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic General
Here's the latest risk level map from globalepidemics.org. Some of the central and southern states that were getting hit hard a couple months ago are starting to see decreases in new cases now.

1633351474275.png
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic General
The decision in the University of California case is just a preliminary ruling, it is not final decision, and it is just one judge in one court. I have not read the mandate in question, but it appears to have relatively few exceptions. Having said that, it's a preliminary indication that challenging vaccine mandates on the basis of a prior infection is likely to be difficult.

I'd be surprised if very many courts side with those challenging "soft mandates" (second link below)

>>>Sept 30 (Reuters) - A U.S. judge upheld the University of California's COVID-19 vaccine requirement against a challenge by a professor who alleged he had immunity due to a prior coronavirus infection, in what appears to be the first ruling on the issue.

U.S. District Court Judge James Selna in Santa Ana, California, said the university system acted rationally to protect public health by mandating the vaccine and not exempting individuals with some level of immunity from an infection.<<<


 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Here's the latest risk level map from globalepidemics.org. Some of the central and southern states that were getting hit hard a couple months ago are starting to see decreases in new cases now.
It's as if the delta strain burned through all the unvaccinated people in those regions. Now we anxiously wait to see the numbers of new infections drop quickly instead of gradually, accompanied by a reduced crush on hospitals in those regions.

All the time, we keep an alert eye out for new variants emerging from infection surges in the USA or elsewhere in the world.
 
Last edited:
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
The decision in the University of California case is just a preliminary ruling, it is not final decision, and it is just one judge in one court. I have not read the mandate in question, but it appears to have relatively few exceptions. Having said that, it's a preliminary indication that challenging vaccine mandates on the basis of a prior infection is likely to be difficult.

I'd be surprised if very many courts side with those challenging "soft mandates" (second link below)
I'm glad to see one decision, albeit not a final one, where the judge ruled that medical or scientific matters prevail over other legal matters. This isn't the first time I've seen a disconnect between 'scientific logic' and 'legal logic'. I'm glad with that decision – so far.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic General
It's as if the delta strain burned through all the unvaccinated people in those regions. Now we anxiously wait to see the numbers of new infections drop significantly, accompanied by the reduced crush on hospitals in those regions.

All the time, we keep an alert eye out for new variants emerging from infection surges in the USA or elsewhere in the world.
I haven't heard much about new variants lately, but of course the day isn't over yet.

There's a somewhat "fluffy" NYT article today about "COVID's Mysterious 2-Month Cycle." It's not clear that there really is a 2-month cycle. When discussing cases in the U.S., The article conveniently ignores the surge in the U.S. last winter. Depending on how the beginning and the end are defined, it was about a 4-month surge.

1633362145046.png


 
R

rnatalli

Audioholic Ninja
I think it's great Merck came up with a drug showing real promise, but do worry this will further encourage folks to not get vaccined. What I can't understand is why the these folks mistrust the drug companies and medical community when it comes to vaccines, but trust the same companies and communities when it comes to what I imagine will be a much more expensive treatment with likely side effects.
 
newsletter

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