Merv's Politically Incorrect Audio Blog

Discussion in 'SBAF Blogs' started by purr1n, Dec 26, 2018.

  1. bilboda

    bilboda Florida boomer

    Pyrate Banned
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2016
    Likes Received:
    834
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Miama
    That's actually not as outlandish as it seems. It has been observed that 15% of the population simply does not get infected no matter the level of exposure. The current hypothesis is that this is a result of a healthy microbiome, the gut.
    Still a work in progress and no treatment has been suggested yet. It would be interesting if one is developed. Unlikely as big pharma will never work on it because there is no profit from a treatment that may be available from any grocery store, and they will likely suppress it with their control of msm and politicians.
     
  2. Tachikoma

    Tachikoma Almost "Made"

    Contributor
    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2015
    Likes Received:
    429
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You know what I don't get? Where's all the money from big pharma and politicians in science? I mean, there must be some payoff for scientists to keep publishing marketing brochures for vaccines.
     
  3. purr1n

    purr1n Desire for betterer is endless.

    Staff Member Pyrate BWC
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2015
    Likes Received:
    89,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Padre Island CC TX
    This is my concern. To be honest, I don't know who to believe. Random website here says one thing, another says another thing. I'm keeping on open mind on it and I'm pretty sure larger scale more robust studies are in progress. We will know more soon enough.

    I think it's more than vague suspicions. We already know it wasn't the people who won with the ACA. Heck, the doctors even lost with that one. Big pharma and big insurance won ACA.

    To this day, some doctors keep pushing Lipitor on me because they are programmed to do so by their pharma reps, I bet some of whom flash a boob or two when they make their sales call. Although my LDL is sky high, my blood pressure is well under 110/70 (usually 105/65), I'm decently ripped for my age, and I have no family history of CHD. According to ASCVD risk calculator, I have no indication to be on a statin. Yet docs keep pushing me to be on this shit, always without explaining possible side effects.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2021
  4. Beefy

    Beefy Friend

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2021
    Likes Received:
    1,738
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Canada
    Bugger me for getting sucked back in, in less than 24 hours. I'm very weak.

    Protease inhibitors are an enormous class of drugs, covering everything from general broad-spectrum digestive enzyme inhibitors, to very specific and potent inhibitors of individual proteases.

    The oral Pfizer drug is designed to block a very specific protease within the COVID virus, that stops it from being able to replicate. It does not affect any proteases our own cells need to survive. The chances of you just finding a drug like this in a natural product and being able to provide it cheaply aren't much different from expecting juice cleanses to cure cancer.

    Ivermectin can act as a general protease inhibitor. It is not specific for any replication pathway within the COVID virus, and also inhibits proteases your own cells need to survive. In doses high enough to properly prevent viral replication, it has massive off-target effects that will also make you very sick.

    I also note the Merck drug announced yesterday is very specific, targeting something called viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase. Basically, it causes catastrophic mutations as the virus replicates, resulting in the replicants being non-functional.

    Clinical trial results FAR better than even the most optimistic estimates of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, zinc, vitamin D, invermectin, etc. But still only capable of cutting death in half, meaning it is about one-tenth to one-twentieth the efficacy of the mRNA vaccines. But the point stands, these drugs work well with minimal side effects because they are specific to COVID.

    I sure as shit haven't seen my drug company cheque yet. Those bastards keep promising to pay me off, but nothing.

    (just so we're 100% clear, this is sarcasm)

    Drug companies, maybe. But what about all the scientists and doctors who actually run the trials, who want nothing more than to save people's lives? All the government-funded research that wants a cure as fast and as cheap as possible? The drug companies simply don't have the resources to buy off all these people.

    If the existing treatments worked, real doctors would be using them, and there would be convincing data to support it. The data is really not convincing, short of extreme cherry-picking of low quality studies.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2021
  5. Thad E Ginathom

    Thad E Ginathom Friend

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2015
    Likes Received:
    14,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    India
    All that stuff about pharma companies and their profits... yeah, I know... but I am still excited about the prospect that Merk has a (possibly over-the-counter) anti-covid drug. The crux is pricing and availability.

    crossposted...
    I know it's a sample of one, but I do know someone who works for Merk, designing clinical trials*. I'm sure he gets paid well enough (which is something I believe that everyone is entitled to go for) but I also know that he loves the job, and believes that he is better, and more effective, at it than he would be being a physician.


    *Probably not this one: I don't have a clue what he is actually working on.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2021
  6. HHS

    HHS Almost "Made"

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2016
    Likes Received:
    252
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    United States
    What exactly is being implied when suggesting that "big pharma" is messing with the studies? The flaws and incomplete data are public, they're not made up, they're not competing opinion pieces on different "random websites". So is big pharma secretly running all these studies and purposely putting out bad results?

    There's a big difference between big money lobbying efforts and just straight up falsifying scientific data around the world in a huge conspiracy.
     
  7. Beefy

    Beefy Friend

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2021
    Likes Received:
    1,738
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Canada
    I know a lot of people who work at drug companies, including some of my former graduate students. They are all honest and ethical scientists of the highest calibre, not the moustache twirling villains many would have you believe.

    From the top down though, there are definitely commercial realities in the drugs that are developed and pushed. I think Pfizer's biggest money earner is still Viagra! That doesn't mean that all drug companies are evil and actively suppressing COVID treatments, it just means that US society is capitalist, and the company is obligated to make money for their shareholders.

    The risk that a drug company could be discovered suppressing a COVID treatment that could save millions of lives..... well, that doesn't pass cost/benefit analysis, considering the potential loss of shareholder value.
     
  8. Tachikoma

    Tachikoma Almost "Made"

    Contributor
    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2015
    Likes Received:
    429
    Trophy Points:
    63
    ... I grew the moustache for nothing??

    In all seriousness though, anyone who actually knows a scientist would know that they aren't in it for the money/payoffs in the form of DHT amps to avoid suspicion.
     
  9. purr1n

    purr1n Desire for betterer is endless.

    Staff Member Pyrate BWC
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2015
    Likes Received:
    89,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Padre Island CC TX
    I hit NIH instead of random websites. But even then, NIH may say things differently over time depending upon the study they reference. We know one study isn't enough. This is the nature of science. It's ever evolving with more data. Just because one BA IEM measures with certain characteristics doesn't mean it's true for all. However, when more and more BA IEMs measure that certain way, then we become more confident. The threshold for medicine of course must be higher than for audio!

    For the approval thresholds of the powers that be (FDA), ivermectin may not pass muster right now. It may not in the end because so many things need to be considered (effectiveness, toxicity, side-effects). For poorer countries like India and Brazil, they very well could say "good enough" (if it's good enough) since it will cost much less than what Merck just cooked up.

    It's less Doctor Evil scientists. It's more that we are spoiled, are a rich country, and have become accustomed to not dying unlike previous generations where people died in wars, during childbirth, or from random illnesses. Humans survived 1918 H1N1, which is still around and killing random folks today. We'll survive this one vaccines or no vaccines.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2021
  10. Beefy

    Beefy Friend

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2021
    Likes Received:
    1,738
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Canada
    What you need to keep an eye out for is high quality meta analysis. These specifically take multiple studies, rate them on quality, establish equivalent outputs, and summarise the results. 'Cochrane Reviews' is the most famous of them, but many many other researchers publish these.

    To the best of my recollection, the most recent Cochrane review summarised very mild positives for ivermectin. But the positive effect relied almost exclusively on two studies that have since been discredited; the so-called Egyptian and Argentinian studies, which are now considered outright fraudulent.
     
  11. purr1n

    purr1n Desire for betterer is endless.

    Staff Member Pyrate BWC
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2015
    Likes Received:
    89,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Padre Island CC TX
    I'm waiting for Oxford's results of their PRINCIPLE trails. They found some stuff that worked and others which did not. Not surprised at Eygpt and Argentina studies:
    --

    There's no incentive to any drug company to put forth as a candidate any drug which is cheap.

    I don't know if you know this. The vast majority of studies are funded by the drug companies. It tends to be worse in the USA. I don't think any public government or academic institutions in the USA have bothered with Ivermectin. Oxford UK has a study in progress.

    upload_2021-10-2_13-26-30.png

    Love of money makes most people do odd things. It really does. If I'm running a drug company and have several candidates, I'm going to pay for the trial for for the newest drug with the longest patent life left on it - and pretend the one available at Walgreens which shows some potential doesn't exist. If that doesn't work out, I will absolutely ensure that my sales staff spreads innocent lies about generics and presents glossies on the "good" stuff, and maybe flash a boob (fear and hope) to ensure that physicians prescribe the more expensive patented stuff.

    It's for this reason that I know some physicians who are just plain nasty to the pharma reps when they make their rounds. And ever wonder why some physicians have a stash of free shit for you try sometimes?
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2021
  12. bilboda

    bilboda Florida boomer

    Pyrate Banned
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2016
    Likes Received:
    834
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Miama
    Seriously? How very condescending of you. The doctors that use them number in the 1000's, likely tens of, they are real as it gets.
    The efficacy of ivermectin was first published in 05/2020 by doctors in the Broward Hospital system here in SoFla. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33065103/ . and still on youtube, uncensored h.They had been encouraged by in vitro studies already done https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011 that showed the effectiveness and promise. They introduced it into their treatment protocols and published the white papers with highly positive results. It was later adopted throughout the hospital system. News spread and it began to be used across the world.
    This was all good news to everyone except big pharm as there could never be an EUA with an available treatment. Big pharma does not have to pay everyone off, just the right people.
    Despite it's success when put to use, the boot came down and the large pharmacies would not fulfill the prescriptions. They inserted themselves between the doctor and the patient and did so without a medical license. Even after the FDA publicly stated they would not interfere with the doctor patient relationship. Looks like big pharm still found the right people to pay off and the FDA was out of the loop and people died as a result. Real doctors were blocked from getting the treatment to their patients and it is still being blocked in most major hospitals in the USA.

    Are you defending this practice?
     
    • Miss Information Miss Information x 2
    • List
  13. Beefy

    Beefy Friend

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2021
    Likes Received:
    1,738
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Canada
    Yes, I absolutely defend that practice. The anecdotal evidence of small numbers of doctors is not even remotely sufficient to justify ivermectin usage. Meta analysis collating data from tens of thousands of patients from properly published studies shows no medical benefit.

    Medical decisions must be based on large amounts of evidence. Not just a small handful of cherry-picked uncontrolled studies.

    Crawl out of the conspiracy theory rabbit hole man. This is absolute rubbish.
     
    • Like Like x 7
    • Epic Epic x 2
    • List
  14. bilboda

    bilboda Florida boomer

    Pyrate Banned
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2016
    Likes Received:
    834
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Miama
    But what harm could it do? Why block it? It serves no purpose bit to support the narrative that vax only. You have someone who's prognosis is poor, the patient and the family want the drug. It is safe and is effective despite your denials. You did see the nih studies right? Meta analysis is not the only tool in the bag. To save a life, you should use all available means. There is no excuse for not using it. Even's fauci's own website touts the effectiveness.

    You know, at one time I thought I had covid. My test was on Monday and I reached my doctor the day before. At that time ivermectin was not known. I brought the subject f HCQ up and he said no. I had already read quite a bit, although I had not read Fauci's paper in which he praised it (still on his website), I started to bring this up and he cut me off, rudely, and went on a Trump rant, Trump said this Trump said that and would not prescribe it. I fired him, I did not want politics inserted into discussion on my health It was likely Fauci who told Trump about HCQ.

    I can't help but think politics is your driving force as well.

    Medical decisions must be based on what is best for the patient. I hope you aren't practicing.
     
    • Miss Information Miss Information x 2
    • List
  15. Beefy

    Beefy Friend

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2021
    Likes Received:
    1,738
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Canada
    My very first post on this issue in this thread....

    The reason you can't just give random drugs without authorization is because of side effects vs potential efficacy.

    Context is vital here. The early data for HCQ and ivermectin were indeed interesting. It hasn't panned out long term in larger studies. It happens.

    Whatever helps you sleep at night.

    So, vaccination it is then.
     
    • Like Like x 9
    • Epic Epic x 3
    • List
  16. Woland

    Woland Friend

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2021
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    a friendly land
    @Beefy Quite a run of epic posts!

    I would love your view on something related.

    When I studied history and philosophy of science, three of the events that were often mentioned as instilling public confidence in science and the scientific process were the rollout of penicillin, the use of the atomic bomb and the moon landing.

    Bringing the pandemic to heel so quickly surely is an achievement of the same magnitude, yet I don't sense any public response to the extraordinary scientific achievement. I don't see any sign of the public demanding more funding for public health specifically, or hailing the vaccine creators for their rapid and effective solutions to one of humanity's great crises. There is some recognition of the medics giving the community prevention and cure, but not of the science and the scientists who created the tools they use.

    Is it a failing of scientists to communicate? Is it the emergence of an anti-science lobby (energy, tobacco, etc..)? What has gone wrong?
     
  17. yotacowboy

    yotacowboy McRibs Kind of Guy

    Pyrate Contributor
    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2016
    Likes Received:
    10,697
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    NOVA
    Home Page:
    You do understand what the purpose of statistical meta analysis is, right?
     
  18. purr1n

    purr1n Desire for betterer is endless.

    Staff Member Pyrate BWC
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2015
    Likes Received:
    89,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Padre Island CC TX
    It's because science gets lost in the rote or for profits. Why do many docs go autopilot and keep writing me up for Lipitor based on my LDL when the science (that takes into account many factors) says I don't need it? Why did science and many docs NOT explain to me the nature of the side effects of NSAIDs, fluoroquinolone antibiotics, fluconazole, and even Moderna to me? I am supposed to massively break out in hives and then report back? Why does the science of economists not seem to work? Why does our government with their archons spend more money than they receive year after year?

    Doctors stopped being healers while medicine became mechanical and habituation repetition (look up insurance code, write up drug prescription). Federally appointed economists stopped being guardians of national harmony when their monetary policies created irrational exuberance leading to popping balloons and hard crashes. Politicians who were tasked with preserving good jobs for their electorate stopping being respectable when they sent out manufacturing jobs overseas so Tim Cook could be super rich. They also spent trillions trying to teach democracy to other people who were not ready for democracy in not one, but two countries.

    Is it really any wonder why people do not trust authority? Science, medicine, economy, and politics.

    Does the science and engineering of Musk and Bezos wonderful spaceships actually help anyone but themselves? Does the Gates Foundation actually invest in people, or does it invest its 40B in assets in mortgage securities and highly profitable corporations that suck the life out of people?

    People mistakenly thought Trump was the cause. He wasn't. He was merely an indicator. You know, like the "check engine" light.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2021
  19. bilboda

    bilboda Florida boomer

    Pyrate Banned
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2016
    Likes Received:
    834
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Miama
    The science involved sucks. It was driven by politics and greed, as usual.
    I saw a meme, can't support the number but it went something like this.
    Since 1900, 292,000,000 people have died at the hands of their governments worldwide. You get the idea.
    And you think your government still cares about you and your life.

    Died for a good cause, you think?
    Every war is fought for power, property and riches. Every single one.
    American industrialists garnered fortunes from all sides in WWII and every war since. This cannot be news to you.
    Why wouldn't this entire endeavor be about the exact same thing.
    You still believe in the altruistic nature of the people earning billions in this pandemic and, no, it is not just big pharma.
    Some things simply never change. Stop being so gullible.
     
    • Miss Information Miss Information x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
  20. Friday

    Friday Friend

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2015
    Likes Received:
    520
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Probably lots of factors at work here, but I'll focus on a simplistic perspective of sci comm. One problem is that what scientists can find and what the public (including policy makers) want are starkly different. Generally, the inferences that scientists can get from their data is fraught with uncertainty, especially with non-experimental studies (common in public health) where too many factors are out of their control. But what the public want are usually black-and-white answers, even from those who claim to be doing their own research. And when there are uncontrolled variables, you can't just look at the data and make comparisons, you have to model them to filter out the noise as much as you can. The ones who are good enough to do good research AND communicate the uncertainty in their findings clearly are few and far between, and have too little time to be everybody's spokesperson.

    On the other hand, you have the academics (I wouldn't call them scientists) who have learnt to just give people what they want, and happily provide black-and-white answers from murky shades of grey, and make big claims from unrepresentative and crappy data. The ones who are eager to go to press before they verify their findings and are propped up by TED talks cos TED talk organisers have no idea how to filter out the good science from the bad, all they care about is a nice story. For now, these still comprise of a small minority and are mostly tenured slobs (especially in the social sciences) who are way past their prime in research, but they get enough attention that it's easy for the public to think big claims are easy to make in science.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Epic Epic x 1
    • List

Share This Page