Jump to content


The P&R Plague Thread (Covid-19)


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Rescind "over" as well and we're talking. It was a statement, backed by thorough studies, with sound logic. 

 

I'll take multiple studies by teams of doctors/analysts and the peer review process over single studies and single doctors' opinions. Because as we know, some doctors and some institutions have political biases as well. That's why it's best to base our opinions on the preponderance of evidence. 

 

It will be nice when we have time to do thorough studies on all this stuff. We are trying to condense years of research and development into months. There will be plenty of blame and praise to spread around after we make it through this. There will be things we thought we had right only to find out we were wrong.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

Not covid related but medical.    Trump announced that the govt is providing an almost $800million loan to help Kodak produce generic drugs and lower our dependance on foreign drug makers (particularly China I assume)   The concept is good - I prefer that all drugs are made in the USA so that we can control the process, quality and distribution.  Kodak's stock as soared as a result.  I understand from the article they were already a pharmacutical supplier of components but not a drug manufacturer - now they will be.  But I have 2 nagging questions:

 

1. This financing of a company in what is essentially a start up operation,  isn't that contrary to the free market, free enterprise system and conservative values that the president claims he supports?

2. How much Kodak stock does Trump Inc, the Trump family, Trump friends hold?

 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/29/investing/kodak-stock-rally-defense-protection-act/index.html

 

 

Quote

 

The enormous rally in Kodak (KODK) shares has no end in sight, after the Trump administration announced the company will be transformed into a pharmaceutical producer under the Defense Production Act.

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump announced the company would receive a $765 million loan to launch Kodak Pharmaceuticals, which will produce generic active pharmaceutical ingredients to reduce America's dependency on foreign drug makers.
The company's shares have skyrocketed on the news. Following a more than 200% jump in Tuesday trading, the rally continued on Wednesday and the shares ended up 318%.
But the soaring performance wasn't without hiccups: The New York Stock Exchange halted trading in the shares 20 times throughout Wednesday's trading session as the stock soared, climbing more than 650% at its highest.
Kodak, once a giant producer of film and cameras before the digital era, pivoted to turn itself into a a materials and chemical company. It filed for bankruptcy in 2012 and emerged as a restructured business the following year.
The company already manufactures key materials for some pharmaceuticals, so its new mission is just an expansion of that capacity, Kodak CEO Jim Continenza told CNN's Julia Chatterley on Wednesday. It will take around three to three and a half years to build out the new production capacity, he said.

 

 
Link to comment
49 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Because it's being pushed for purely political reasons, by the same guy who said C19 would just "go away" by April, and who's shrugged his way through 150,000 American deaths. People grasping at straws for any way that Trump may be correct (or in Landlord's case, just finding my posts and being contrarian) aren't paying attention. 

 

 

@Landlord beat me to it. But from what I have seen and read, not all published findings are politically driven. There is some evidence that it works for some patients. 

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
24 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

@Landlord beat me to it. But from what I have seen and read, not all published findings are politically driven. There is some evidence that it works for some patients. 

 

 

I posted the studies that show it's not effective. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

I think what's really interesting is - why do people want this to be a thing? Why push so hard for everyone to believe that HCQ is an effective treatment for a disease it's not designed to treat, when it's really only being pushed by one bloated orange guy with no medical knowledge and a dodgy history of being wrong in the past?

Link to comment

25 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

 

I posted the studies that show it's not effective. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

I think what's really interesting is - why do people want this to be a thing? Why push so hard for everyone to believe that HCQ is an effective treatment for a disease it's not designed to treat, when it's really only being pushed by one bloated orange guy with no medical knowledge and a dodgy history of being wrong in the past?

What about Remdesivir? Similar 50/50 findings, but Trump isn't hawking it...so its okay? Its an Ebola drug btw.

  • Plus1 1
  • Fire 1
Link to comment
6 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

 

I posted the studies that show it's not effective. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

I think what's really interesting is - why do people want this to be a thing? Why push so hard for everyone to believe that HCQ is an effective treatment for a disease it's not designed to treat, when it's really only being pushed by one bloated orange guy with no medical knowledge and a dodgy history of being wrong in the past?

Can someone explain these findings published by Fauci I believe in his virology journal 

 

https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-2-69

 

He says in 2005 chloroquine is highly effective at treating and preventing SARS coronavirus 

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, knapplc said:

 

Show me where Anthony Fauci is the author of what you linked.

I never said Fauci wrote the article. The virology journal is funded by the NIH. Isn’t Fauci the head of the NIH? 

Regardless of who actually typed the words- it looks supported by NIH and many peer reviews by top notch virologists. Do the findings not make you curious 

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Huskers93-97 said:

I never said Fauci wrote the article. The virology journal is funded by the NIH. Isn’t Fauci the head of the NIH? 

Regardless of who actually typed the words- it looks supported by NIH and many peer reviews by top notch virologists. Do the findings not make you curious 

 

Do you know why they call C19 a "novel" coronavirus? It's because while it's similar, it's not the same (or same enough) to be treated wholly like other strains.  So whether this study in 2005 showed that HCQ was effective on whatever strain(s) they were testing on at the time, it wouldn't show anything vis-a-vis this new virus. 

 

What makes me most curious is that a certain segment of the populace is really, really interested in HCQ being a cure for THIS flavor of coronavirus. 

 

It's a similar but flipped question for Remdesivir, as @DevoHusker is talking about above. It's possibly effective, studies have yet to show effectiveness, but while Remdesivir and HCQ have possibly the same efficacy in treating this virus (or not treating it), yet Trump sympathists and supporters don't push Remdesivir at all like they push hydroxychloroquine. That's the politicization of this epidemic that everyone hates so much.  

 

And yet another curious thing - why does any Trump person care what Fauci said or didn't say at this point?  I thought Trump was actively trying to discredit the man because Trump's jealous that Fauci is being listened to more than him. But here we are, asking whether this 2005 study from Fauci's organization shows that Fauci tacitly endorsed HCQ as a remedy. 

 

But anyway. About that study.  

 

 

 

Quote

 

2005 chloroquine study had nothing to do with COVID-19 and the drug wasn’t given to humans

IF YOUR TIME IS SHORT

  • The 2005 study wasn’t published by the NIH and didn’t prove chloroquine was effective against “COVID-1” because that’s not a real disease.

  • The study found that chloroquine could inhibit the spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome in animal cell culture, and the authors said more research was needed. 

  • There are currently no approved medications or treatments for COVID-19.

 

 

 


 

 

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

Or just scroll down and read the virologists conclusion if you don’t want to read the whole thing. It says chloroquine is a relatively safe drug used to treat many human illnesses. It was shown effective to inhibit and stop the spread of SARS in cultures. Also it could be effective therapy. 

 

 

Knapp you are blinded by your hate for trump. How can you not read that and say why was it dismissed so early? SARS and Covid are both in the coronavirus family. They are not exactly the same but pretty similar. How was it a safe drug then, and for many years treating other viruses and now it’s not safe anymore? It’s wierd narratives like it’s not safe that make people question the whole thing. 

  • Plus1 1
  • Fire 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Huskers93-97 said:

Or just scroll down and read the virologists conclusion if you don’t want to read the whole thing. It says chloroquine is a relatively safe drug used to treat many human illnesses. It was shown effective to inhibit and stop the spread of SARS in cultures. Also it could be effective therapy. 

 

 

Knapp you are blinded by your hate for trump. How can you not read that and say why was it dismissed so early? SARS and Covid are both in the coronavirus family. They are not exactly the same but pretty similar. How was it a safe drug then, and for many years treating other viruses and now it’s not safe anymore? It’s wierd narratives like it’s not safe that make people question the whole thing. 

 

You're not even reading others' responses now. I answered all of this in the post above. The Politifact article addresses this particular study.

 

Why do you need hydroxychloroquine to be a cure for this virus? 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

You're not even reading others' responses now. I answered all of this in the post above. The Politifact article addresses this particular study.

 

Why do you need hydroxychloroquine to be a cure for this virus? 

I don’t need it to be a cure. I would like to know why dr’s post online videos of their success with the drug, which lines up more with the virology journal findings. 

 

Why do you need it to not be a possible treatment? 

  • Plus1 1
  • Fire 1
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Huskers93-97 said:

I don’t need it to be a cure. I would like to know why dr’s post online videos of their success with the drug, which lines up more with the virology journal findings. 

 

Why do you need it to not be a possible treatment? 

 

I've explained my caution with HCQ a dozen times. 

 

Which doctor video are you talking about?

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Huskers93-97 said:

I don’t need it to be a cure. I would like to know why dr’s post online videos of their success with the drug, which lines up more with the virology journal findings. 

 

Why do you need it to not be a possible treatment? 

Would this be the doctor in the video that you are referring to? :thumbs

 

gallery_xlarge.jpg

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...