Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
COVID-19: Some Much Needed Perspective
Craig Medred, an independent journalist from Alaska, has written periodically about the COVID-19 pandemic. Oftentimes his starting point is an Alaskan perspective, but he is always making larger points about the pandemic and reaction to it by, variously, scientists, public health professionals, government leaders, media, and the public. His latest piece, Pushing Fear, brings some much needed perspective.
Public health policy needs to reflect trade-offs in society. Had the virus truly been an existential threat to all of humanity, then the draconian response might have been the right response to preserve the germ of humanity from the scourge. But the virus is and was not such a threat. It was not likely to have been such a threat coming from the same biosphere in which humanity itself arose. An alien virus from a different galaxy? Well that might be a different matter.
Given that it was understood earlier (see the cruise ship examples) not to be an existential threat, why were all the trade-offs not on the table to begin with? Why has everyone who has suggested trade-offs and accepting some level of adverse outcomes been derided or silenced? Because it served the Progressive agenda of putting government decision-making above individual liberty.
How do we recapture liberty and bring our government and “woke” corporations back under control? By providing perspective on the pandemic and asking the simple question: What are we willing to do about lifestyles, DNA, and liberty to eliminate death from all other causes? The answer is: Very little. Life ends in death, so death avoidance cannot be the societal goal. Making our societies work for most people, providing succor to the losers in life’s lottery, that has to be the goal. Mandating face diapers and forbidding productive work is not the answer. And certainly not substituting mandates for information and persuasion to live and act in ways that are the best chance (not the guaranteed outcome) of minimizing debilitating disease and death in our world.
[Note: Links to all my COVID-19 posts can be found here.]
Published in General
Yes, he is a big advocate- but always be cautious with advocates. The HCQ boondoggle was started by shrill claims by several clinicians which didn’t hold up. I made an earlier post (on another thread) about the problem of publication bias and science by press release. The quality of positive studies to date is poor and several better trials are in progress.
the prior post:
“publication” bias is a real thing and a very big problem in a pandemic. Essentially everyone wants good news so when studies are released claiming efficacy they get huge press- but the news release isn’t the same as getting a peer reviewed publication. So sometimes very poor data is released and gets massive publicity- “a lie gets around the world before the truth gets it’s pants on”. Additionally, publication bias exists b/c many journals will NOT publish negative studies unless they are in response to prior positive studies (who cares if X drug does not work in Y disease). So many become confused by all the negative data that comes out after the initial positive press release- and think it is a plot against the drug. Groups like the FLCCC are often unpopular in the medical world b/c they are seen as doing medicine by press release rather than real “science”- not following standard practice of seeking peer review and possibly contravailing data to be assessed.
BTW- comparing Bangladesh to Germany is fraught with many apples to oranges problems- climate, population demographics etc. Attributing the difference to ivermectin could easily be an ill considered stretch.
How many tests per million in those different places?
Ivermectin is safe… efficacy is debatable
same with HCQ (Harvey Risch)
Kory Pierre has advocated Ivermectin based on his experience treating covid patients. He has no political or financial agenda as far as I can tell
More data has arrived on Ivermectin:
1) it doesn’t seem to work for mild COVID:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389?guestAccessKey=ab31cadb-b516-469a-be55-bbbf6b2c7b11&utm_source=silverchair&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=article_alert-jama&utm_content=olf&utm_term=030421
2) There have been a retraction of one of the most cited papers supporting it:
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/frontiers-removes-controversial-ivermectin-paper-pre-publication-68505
the editors ”identified “a series of strong, unsupported claims based on studies with insufficient statistical significance, and at times, without the use of control groups.”
other points in the Scientist article:
-“This isn’t the first time that Kory and his colleagues at FLCCC have been accused of making unsubstantiated claims about ivermectin”
-“FLCCC founder Paul Marik, the first author on the now-rejected Frontiers manuscript and a professor at Eastern Virginia Medical School, wrote a paper reviewing ivermectin that included references to debunked papers, including an observational study of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients led by now-discredited Surgisphere Corporation. That study, which had been posted on the preprint server SSRN, was taken down”
Ivermectin is unproven as of yet and more studies are on going, but claims of it being a miracle drug, are at least, premature.
the-scientist article is based on hearsay not actual patient or clinical data
Not exactly- the Scientist article was about the problems with publications supporting Ivermectin. The peer review process has led to the rejection/retraction of articles by FLCCC members because of flaws in those articles. That isn’t hearsay- it is sound editorial practice.
Who are members of this peer review process?
What are their political affiliations?
But you’re also missing the point — Dr Kory Pierre has treated hundreds of patients with Ivermectin
How many patients have the peer review board seen and treated?
I’m guessing 0
That doesn’t mean Dr. KP used a control group. A correlation where a lot of people take a drug and recover counts as evidence, but it’s not the best evidence unless you also check to make sure people who aren’t taking it aren’t getting better in similar numbers.
The critics are most likely Democrats–merely a reason to be cautious and examine their reasoning carefully for flaws. Their reasoning is still what matters.
True Dr KP didn’t use a control group but he is more interested in helping ICU patients live than publish a study that only a dozen people will read
True, not all doctors want to be distracted by doing a study, but then they should be very modest about the claims they are making. And if they can get someone to do a study on this, it will be read by a lot more than a dozen people. There are things that appear in very specialized academic journals that probably don’t get more than a dozen readers, but in a field like this it will have wide readership.
“Masks saves lives”
Is this a modest statement?
Lockdowns saves lives… more modesty?
Not modest, but it is extremely difficult to do ethical studies to back up those statements. When saying that a particular treatment saves lives, there is a reasonable possibility of doing a study. Dr. Seheult of the MedCram video series did follow some medical practices that he and his colleagues thought had a good chance of working. When good studies came out showing otherwise, they backed off to the extent warranted by the studies.
https://c19ivermectin.com/
https://ivmmeta.com/
Obviously not correct or not a complete reporting of the data-they claim 100% of studies show positive effects-but the JAMA article shows no effect so either they are missing studies or cherry-picking studies
How many covid patients have you treated?
The patients who were treated with Ivermectin don’t care about you or JAMA
Saying ‘obviously’ doesn’t make your opinion more true
Yelling doesn’t help either
or using capital letters
because JAMA never cherry picks or omits studies
Uh hmm (clearing throat), @mimac and @misterbitcoin this may be the point where I suggest the two of you take this outside.
Good idea
I am not wearing a mask or gloves
@rodin — I apologize for hijacking the thread.
@mimac — where should we meet?
The point is not that the JAMA article is definitive but when an online, “continually updated review” claims 100% of the studies show effectiveness AND omits the JAMA study one has to question the accuracy of the review…
@mimac — you have no point
blah blah blah blah JAMA
tell that to Dr Kory Pierre’s patients, the ones who were sick and are now recovered
Give us some of their names and twitter handles, and we’ll give it a try.
Actually a point any serious physician would understand- well done therapeutic trials are the basis of our field- otherwise we are just Theodoric of York. Many clinician’s impressions and anecdotes have turned out to be mistaken-particularly in diseases in which many patients get better on their own w/o therapy. Ivermectin may work, but at this point the data is of low quality-hopefully this will be resolved soon as better trials are underway. There are many, many examples of early outcome reports/studies that did not pan out when further investigated.
https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/theodoric-of-york/n8661
always like to get a Theodoric of York reference in…
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/12/ama_lied__how_many_died.html
Written by MD
Fewer than 20% of doctors belong to AMA
AMA is more about politics than medicine
https://dryburgh.com/ivermectin-pierre-kory/
https://dryburgh.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/FLCCC-Ivermectin-in-the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-COVID-19.pdf
https://thecovidblog.com/2021/01/18/new-york-judge-saves-80-year-old-covid-19-patient-by-ordering-hospital-to-give-her-ivermectin/