Biden: Door to Door Vaccination Outreach Plan

[Slug1]

10 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I'm admittedly skeptical, but I'd be happy to look at the evidence supporting this claim.

 

Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. A good place to start is looking up Dr. Peter McCullough. He's even published 40 (+?) peer reviewed papers on the subject of managing Covid-19.

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Slug1 said:

Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. A good place to start is looking up Dr. Peter McCullough.

No, this is not evidence. This is just a vague claim with a doctor's name added for credibility. When making a strong and controversial claim, it is customary to provide facts and/or information (evidence) to support that claim. Here is an example.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22446-z

The linked article shows a meta analysis of randomized control trials (eliminating bias in those conducting the research) to study the effectiveness of HCQ and CQ as COVID treatment. By meta analysis, this is a study of multiple studies - in this case, 28 studies involving over 10,000 patients. The authors of this study concluded "We found that treatment with hydroxychloroquine is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine."

On the other hand, ivermectin does show more promise. More trials are needed, but another meta analysis of 15 trials covering over 2000 patients strongly suggests that ivermectin is effective, particularly early in COVID cases. "Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145166/

Ivermectin is certainly worth further research for two major reasons. First, vaccines may not be available to poorer countries for many months still, possibly even a couple of years. Ivermectin could be critical in treating cases in these countries. Second, as the pandemic continues globally, more variants will arise that may not be as effectively treated by the current vaccines (some evidence of this already for the delta variant). Ivermectin could play a critical role there.

However, in the theme of backing up claims with evidence, I am unaware of any evidence showing that ivermectin is more effective or safer than the vaccines. There are inevitably risks of severe adverse conditions to any drug and ivermectin is no exception. People are clearly concerned about the safety of vaccines, as they should be. These are new vaccines and close scrutiny is warranted. However, bloggers or social media influencers that warn us about the dangers of vaccines have done virtually no research into the adverse effects of alternative drugs they propose.

Edited July 7, 2021 by one.opinion

[Slug1]

32 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

No, this is not evidence. This is just a vague claim with a doctor's name added for credibility. When making a strong and controversial claim, it is customary to provide facts and/or information (evidence) to support that claim. Here is an example.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22446-z

The linked article shows a meta analysis of randomized control trials (eliminating bias in those conducting the research) to study the effectiveness of HCQ and CQ as COVID treatment. By meta analysis, this is a study of multiple studies - in this case, 28 studies involving over 10,000 patients. The authors of this study concluded "We found that treatment with hydroxychloroquine is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine."

On the other hand, ivermectin does show more promise. More trials are needed, but another meta analysis of 15 trials covering over 2000 patients strongly suggests that ivermectin is effective, particularly early in COVID cases. "Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145166/

Ivermectin is certainly worth further research for two major reasons. First, vaccines may not be available to poorer countries for many months still, possibly even a couple of years. Ivermectin could be critical in treating cases in these countries. Second, as the pandemic continues globally, more variants will arise that may not be as effectively treated by the current vaccines (some evidence of this already for the delta variant). Ivermectin could play a critical role there.

However, in the theme of backing up claims with evidence, I am unaware of any evidence showing that ivermectin is more effective or safer than the vaccines. There are inevitably risks of severe adverse conditions to any drug and ivermectin is no exception. People are clearly concerned about the safety of vaccines, as they should be. These are new vaccines and close scrutiny is warranted. However, bloggers or social media influencers that warn us about the dangers of vaccines have done virtually no research into the adverse effects of alternative drugs they propose.

 

I'm not gonna link his published papers, simple reason, he's no "blogger or influencer." When people want to be informed, they will seek after the information from people deep in the study of covid and also "weigh" research between researchers.

[Slug1]

Just now, Chicken coop2 said:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/hydroxychloroquine-does-not-benefit-adults-hospitalized-covid-19&ved=2ahUKEwjOmLGomNHxAhUUCM0KHRWbDL4QFjACegQIAxAF&usg=AOvVaw33mrWHZKW8W-orVxqGwyv5

 

There are two things in that link which should raise concern 1) google and 2) gov 

[Slug1]

7 minutes ago, Chicken coop2 said:

This site doesn't like my links.  But they work when I do it in chat room.

 

Do you just paste the links into the post, or do you use the "link" button (the chain link thingy), in the menu bar for posts?

[Slug1]

6 minutes ago, Chicken coop2 said:

Always worked that way for me until today in this thread.  

Most likely due to the updated software.

[Still Alive]

I think Biden is just trolling the right and, perhaps trying to satisfy his True Believers. They're out there. 

 

I don't take it seriously. 

[Slug1]

38 minutes ago, Chicken coop2 said:

2. NIH reports list in their review of literature section in every report an exhaustive list of peer reviewed research about whatever the topic is. 

 

I will be checking this site out, thank you.

[missmuffet]

19 hours ago, WorthyBot said:

“We need to go community-by-community, neighborhood-by-neighborhood, and oft times door-to-door, literally knocking on doors” to get people vaccinated, President Joe Biden said.

What would you say if they knocked on your door?

View the full article

I would tell them that I have not been vaccinated and that I will not be getting vaccinated. 

[one.opinion]

3 hours ago, Slug1 said:

"weigh" research between researchers.

This is the exact purpose of meta analysis studies. These take a look at large numbers of individual studies to look at all of the available information.

Bottom line - HCQ and CQ have not been conclusively shown to be effective. Ivermectin appears to be effective, particularly when administered early in infection. More study on ivermectin seems like a reeeeeally good idea.

I should add the caveat that vaccinations are just as safe as these proposed treatments and much more effective. Here in the US, where vaccines are available for free, the vaccines are a much better option.

Edited July 7, 2021 by one.opinion