COVID-19 Discussion 😷

[TeamAudra]

Considering her obesity puts her in a high risk category (her husband too) she probably shouldn’t be getting up into the faces of those kids, or touching her mask with her dirty hands. Actually, I think she made physical contact with that kid. What a nutcase. 
 

 

Edited August 4, 2020 by TeamAudra

[psterina]

On 7/29/2020 at 6:52 PM, sneaky said:

Here's a gem from "Dr" Immanuel

 

Immanuel claims that medical issues like endometriosis, cysts, infertility, and impotence are caused by sex with “spirit husbands” and “spirit wives”—a phenomenon Immanuel describes essentially as witches and demons having sex with people in a dreamworld.

“They are responsible for serious gynecological problems,” Immanuel said. “We call them all kinds of names—endometriosis, we call them molar pregnancies, we call them fibroids, we call them cysts, but most of them are evil deposits from the spirit husband,” Immanuel said of the medical issues in a 2013 sermon. “They are responsible for miscarriages, impotence—men that can’t get it up.”

 

 

I think you forgot, the point of the post. The FACT is .... she has treated 350 patients, diagnosed with Covid-19. And NONE OF THEM HAS DIED. What do you have to say about THAT small, tiny "forgotten" detail?  

[psterina]

Also .... while I'm in here ...   Good video. The comments, are priceless, and say so much

 

 

[psterina]

On 7/28/2020 at 10:34 PM, TeamAudra said:

Oh, wow. Take a minute and study that chart. 
 

 

 

Just a harmless question, here, but....  could it be due to the FACT, that there is a FEDERAL monetary incentive, to states & hospitals for diagnosing COVID patients, and another monetary incentive, for putting patients on ventilators, and yet a bigger monetary incentive, to mark a death certificate, as a COVID-19 death?  You all, do know about this  ....right? 

[sneaky]

3 hours ago, psterina said:

 

 

I think you forgot, the point of the post. The FACT is .... she has treated 350 patients, diagnosed with Covid-19. And NONE OF THEM HAS DIED. What do you have to say about THAT small, tiny "forgotten" detail?  

I would say I would not believe anything that comes from a doctor that talks about sex with demons and runs a religious kookery program out of her medical establishment

[ATX29]

3 hours ago, psterina said:

 

Just a harmless question, here, but....  could it be due to the FACT, that there is a FEDERAL monetary incentive, to states & hospitals for diagnosing COVID patients, and another monetary incentive, for putting patients on ventilators, and yet a bigger monetary incentive, to mark a death certificate, as a COVID-19 death?  You all, do know about this  ....right? 

 

And add to that the fact that many hospitals have been barred from cunducting elective surgeries at various times throughout this whole mess, which costs them money.  But not to worry...slap COVID on the death certificate and get paid!

[ButterflyEffect]

17 hours ago, sneaky said:

I would say I would not believe anything that comes from a doctor that talks about sex with demons and runs a religious kookery program out of her medical establishment

lmao thank you.

[psterina]

Good to see.  More & more doctors, speaking out

 

 

[psterina]

On 8/4/2020 at 5:15 PM, ATX29 said:

 

And add to that the fact that many hospitals have been barred from cunducting elective surgeries at various times throughout this whole mess, which costs them money.  But not to worry...slap COVID on the death certificate and get paid!

 

 

I know, right?

[psterina]

On 8/4/2020 at 5:09 PM, sneaky said:

I would say I would not believe anything that comes from a doctor that talks about sex with demons and runs a religious kookery program out of her medical establishment

 

 

No one has to believe anything she believes, or anything that comes out of her mouth,  HOWEVER  ... I'm sure her record, is one easily proved, or dis-proved. The proof will be in the pudding, not in anyone's "beliefs". 

[ButterflyEffect]

Quote

LETTER: Peer review before press — it just makes sense
 

Being a Newfoundland expat currently living in Boston during this awful global pandemic, I have kept abreast of the news on both sides of the border. One of the reasons is the desire to travel, so that I can see family, friends and my daughter gets to visit her nanny and poppy. Typical away from home stuff.
 

As such, the headline “Stanford, Oxford, and Memorial University study cautions against lifting Newfoundland’s travel restrictions to combat COVID-19” by David Maher (Aug. 1st), piqued my interest. The study referenced is a wonderful work, combining an epidemiology model with machine learning to predict the effects of opening Newfoundland to the rest of the world. To get the details, I read the manuscript posted on medRxiv. Cautionary flags ensued.
 

MedRxiv is a preprint server. In academic publishing, a preprint is a version of a scholarly or scientific paper that precedes formal peer review and final journal publication. In fact, the medRxiv homepage explicitly states:
 

“Caution: Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.”
 

My current role is editor-in-chief of an academic journal for Cell Press (Matter). I deal with such preprints on a daily basis. They aren’t bad. They are just an early version of a study — like the first cut of a film. The critical point is that these preprint manuscripts have not yet been peer reviewed.

 

Why is that a problem?
 

First, subject to peer review, most manuscripts undergo revisions. Some assumptions are asked to be justified, and more results are produced to support conclusions. Unlikely to change the primary findings of any study, there could be subtle differences between the preprint and the final published work. Reporting before revisions could ultimately report false information. Second, and of greater consequence, the paper could be rejected post-review. Perhaps there was a critical flaw or error that the authors had missed. Perhaps there is a major missing piece to the argument. It happens all the time.
 

In times when leaders should turn to science rather than politics to make policy and societal decisions, we want the underlying science to be as trustworthy as possible.

Of more subtle concern — amplified recently due to the COVID crisis — is the rush to announce scientific findings before they have been sufficiently vetted. Physicians and politicians are desperate for reliable and actionable information on COVID-19. There were early non-peer-reviewed studies on hydroxychloroquine, and I need not point out the resulting quagmire. While researchers and experts understand that the information posted on preprint servers may or may not be reliable, such data may be unintentionally misunderstood by the general public or distorted by those who post comments on social media. This is at best misleading, and at worst leads to (dare I say it) the emergence of fake news. While we should act quickly on COVID research, we have to ensure sure the science is still scrutinized and stands up to critique.
 

We have to trust the process.
 

With all that being said, I don’t mean to delegitimize the work of Dr. Proton Rahman and colleagues. It is neither misinterpreted nor misleading and is the result if renowned scientists from acclaimed institutes. It is just putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. Being in the materials science field, I am familiar with the works of both Prof. Ellen Kuhl and Prof. Alain Goriely. Moreover, while not familiar with Rahman’s works personally, I do not doubt his credentials. This is a rigorous study. It will likely be published in a reputable journal (the authors can reach out to me if they are interested in Cell Press). However, care should be taken before The Telegram, or any other media outlet, announces scientific findings with the implication they are definitive.
Particularly prior to peer review.
 

In times when leaders should turn to science rather than politics to make policy and societal decisions, we want the underlying science to be as trustworthy as possible. At least as trustworthy as the free press. It just makes sense.
 

Steven W. Cranford, Ph.D.
Editor-in-Chief, Matter (Cell Press)
Boston, Mass.

 

https://www.thetelegram.com/opinion/local-perspectives/letter-peer-review-before-press-it-just-makes-sense-482220/

Good editorial from my local news paper regarding media publishing news articles on non-peer-reviewed science. A little glimpse inside the scientific publishing process. Copied and pasted the entire editorial above since it is paywall'd, however you do get three free articles a month so unless you've been reading other stuff from the website you should be able to also see it at the above link.

[psterina]

Amazingly effective in killing Covid-19.  But why, have we not heard of this? Well, let's see ... 6 Corporations own all MSM, and people at the top of the Pharmaceutical Industry, sit on their boards. And since the masses, only hear what THEY want you  to know ....could  THAT, be why? They wouldn't make their big bucks?

 

 

[ButterflyEffect]

6 hours ago, psterina said:

Amazingly effective in killing Covid-19.  But why, have we not heard of this? Well, let's see ... 6 Corporations own all MSM, and people at the top of the Pharmaceutical Industry, sit on their boards. And since the masses, only hear what THEY want you  to know ....could  THAT, be why? They wouldn't make their big bucks?

 

 

Research regarding Ivermectin and the SARS-CoV-2 virus is actually very easy to find, as it's been published by several researchers. No one is covering it up.

Ivermectin has shown promising efficacy in in vitro (meaning in controlled lab studies outside the body), but in vivo studies (meaning actually in the bodies of test subjects) is scant or non-existent. In vitro studies usually mark the very beginning of drug research, and positive in vitro testing usually leads to in vivo testing of test animals (eg. rats) before progressing further.

Taking preliminary in vitro research results and immediately applying it to humans, completely untested, is absolutely insane, reckless, and can and will result in adverse effects and/or death. There could come a day when Ivermectin is indeed deemed effective against the COVID-19 virus, however this is NOT how drug development works. You can't just skip the middle parts of research, otherwise you may hurt or kill people. Drug companies and R&D companies are being afforded a lot of liberties right now to try and get a vaccine or treatment for COVID, but skipping a vital part of the drug development process will not fly, even in the worst shithole countries on this planet.

[1234567890]

[psterina]

Ahem ...............................

It looks like a lot of videos, speaking out about the "revised" Covid #'s are being taken down. This one may be too. So .... I will post the link to the actual CDC site, as well as a video, discussing this  https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

 

 

[Smoochy]

My wife just had a cousin in her early 40s pass away from COVID over the weekend.

[TeamAudra]

 

 

[FunkyFrankie]

A second wave is here! but mostly in Toronto, Peel, Halton, Ottawa region.  I wouldn't count London out yet, since we had another case in a Wal Mart, Northwest of the city 

[RWG]

Weeeeeeee

 

[FunkyFrankie]

There's like over 500 today for Ontario.  Yikes, numbers are going up again

[RWG]

^ A week ago, the worst prognostications had us at +1,000 halfway through October. Testing has ticked up too, such that it looks like maybe the curve is flattening a bit. But with the new testing criteria and how deep the backlog is, who knows. The number of new cases a day feels almost arbitrary.

[miss denise]

I've been sick for about a week and got COVID tested twice (including today).  I think it's more likely the flu, but the test is definitely not fun! I feel for all the people who have worse cases than what I'm dealing with.  Sure hope this can all get better soon.  

[FunkyFrankie]

On 10/7/2020 at 8:01 PM, RWG said:

^ A week ago, the worst prognostications had us at +1,000 halfway through October. Testing has ticked up too, such that it looks like maybe the curve is flattening a bit. But with the new testing criteria and how deep the backlog is, who knows. The number of new cases a day feels almost arbitrary.

yeah, numbers are bound to go up again this winter, with the flu being in, everything is open, schools being open and students are back to universities and colleges

[RWG]

I've heard about doctors saying this for a while now: masks are more effective at stopping the spread of the coronavirus than would be a vaccine, which might require a year for a sufficient portion of the population to get, and which might only make 50% of the people who get it immune.

 

 

[psterina]

Sweden’s plummeting daily death rate shows ‘pointlessness’ of Melbourne’s lockdown. 

 

And, along with that title, it also is true for anyone's lockdown.