Carlton Supporters Club
CV and mad panic behaviour - Printable Version

+- Carlton Supporters Club (http://new.carltonsc.com)
+-- Forum: Social Club (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: Blah-Blah Bar (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-23.html)
+--- Thread: CV and mad panic behaviour (/thread-4651.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - Mav - 02-22-2022

I was interested to see how Flyboy's favourite site c19early.com handled the bad news of these randomised trials. I looked at how it dealt with the earlier Malaysian randomised trial conducted by Lim et al. abstracted HERE
Quote:Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who progressed to severe disease, defined as the hypoxic stage requiring supplemental oxygen to maintain pulse oximetry oxygen saturation of 95% or higher. Secondary outcomes of the trial included the rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, 28-day in-hospital mortality, and adverse events.

Results: Among 490 patients included in the primary analysis (mean [SD] age, 62.5 [8.7] years; 267 women [54.5%]), 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% CI, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). For all prespecified secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups. Mechanical ventilation occurred in 4 (1.7%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17), intensive care unit admission in 6 (2.4%) vs 8 (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79), and 28-day in-hospital death in 3 (1.2%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09). The most common adverse event reported was diarrhea (14 [5.8%] in the ivermectin group and 4 [1.6%] in the control group).

Conclusions and relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, ivermectin treatment during early illness did not prevent progression to severe disease. The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.

It is widely regarded as debunking ivermectin as a treatment for Covid, but the anonymous author simply decided to ignore the statistical analysis that "For all prespecified secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups" and assert that the study proved that Ivermectin reduced mortality by 69% to 75%. S/he claimed "The mortality reduction is consistent with the results from all trials to date. While not reaching the significance threshold with the specified test, Bayesian analysis shows a 97% probability that ivermectin reduces mortality". S/he concluded that this "equate(s) to ~4 million lives saved if adopted at the start of the pandemic.:  https://c19ivermectin.com/lim.html#rn0

Apparently, the anonymous author felt s/he was able to apply statistical polyfilla that allowed him/her to draw such conclusions as well as a dark inference that there was "substantial investigator bias with a preference for a null result". That's despite the study being peer reviewed.

It seems that the anonymous site is the equivalent of the Black Knight claiming "It's only a flesh wound" in response to mortal blows. If that's the way the site manipulates studies that are clearly contrary to its support of ivermectin, it can't be taken seriously. 

At some point, I'll look at how it has dealt with the retractions of fraudulent and improper studies & papers and whether it has noted the cautions added to metastudies based in part on them.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - capcom - 02-22-2022

(02-22-2022, 11:52 AM)Thryleon link Wrote:Uk pulling all covid restrictions a month earlier than anticipated.

Green light for normality resumed. 

The UK "duel fuel" increases (eff April) will wake up the masses .... up 54% or an annual bill of $4000 AUD.



Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - Mav - 02-22-2022

The c19early.com site includes the withdrawn Elgazzar study that allegedly considered 200 patients, but it does note that it has been withdrawn. Does that mean it's conclusions are no longer part of the mashup offered by the site regarding Ivermectin? Who can say?

However, the site also lists a meta-analysis by Bryant et al. which did include the Elgazzar study. There's no mention made in the details offered for that analysis that this is at this is now a highly controversial analysis given that the Elgazzar study's alleged 200 patients and amazingly supportive conclusions would have had a large impact on the meta-analysis. Bryant is fighting a rearguard action to defend his paper by saying Elgazzar still stands behind the validity of his study and excluding it from the meta-analysis wouldn't make much of a difference. But many call BS on that.

In any event, a site that doesn't note that controversy and exclude the results of the meta-analysis pending a final determination of the claims of Bryant and Elgazzar isn't worth the paper it's not written on.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - Mav - 02-22-2022

Interesting to see how that site treated the Together trial published on 6/8/2021 which was conducted in Brazil and supervised by McMaster University, Canada.

The "data" from the trial which presumably is fed into the site's mashup showed an 18% improvement in mortality and a 9% improvement in extended ER observations. You'd imagine that such results would be celebrated but instead the site devotes screenfuls of takedowns to prove that the study is corrupt and untrue. It's almost as if the trial actually concluded that Ivermectin was useless.

And indeed the trial concluded that ivermectin showed “no effect whatsoever” on the trial’s outcome goals — whether patients required extended observation in the emergency room or hospitalization.

How can adverse studies be included in the site's "meta-analysis" as positive ones? Amazing ...

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - LP - 02-23-2022

(02-22-2022, 11:33 PM)Mav date Wrote:How can adverse studies be included in the site's "meta-analysis" as positive ones? Amazing ...
At this stage all meta analysis is redundant in regards to COVID, we've millions of global physical cases to use and no longer need to extrapolate obscure results from aggregating smaller studies especially smaller meta analysis studies.

In any case, there are serious questions of validity whenever meta analysis aggregates meta analysis, many say that is invalid by default.

Meta analysis is supposed to aggregate smaller physical studies, field trials, in situ, lab in vitro, etc., etc., to simulate a bigger/broader physical trail, not an aggregation of other meta analysis. In effect meta analysis of meta analysis is like a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy.

Even worse, many of the meta analysis in the aggregation refer to the same fault physical trials. It's like using footage of one single car accident to explain every car accident that ever happened.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - DJC - 02-24-2022

Clive Palmer is in hospital with COVID.  I know that you’re not supposed to take pleasure in other folk’s suffering, but stuff it; the kent deserves all he gets.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - northernblue - 02-24-2022

(02-24-2022, 12:34 PM)DJC link Wrote:Clive Palmer is in hospital with COVID.  I know that you’re not supposed to take pleasure in other folk’s suffering, but stuff it; the kent deserves all he gets.

And for spamming my Mobi !!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - LP - 02-25-2022

(02-24-2022, 12:34 PM)DJC date Wrote:Clive Palmer is in hospital with COVID.  I know that you’re not supposed to take pleasure in other folk’s suffering, but stuff it; the kent deserves all he gets.
Yes, it's not good for anybody, especially older and overweight.

But it is another knife in the COVID is just the flu brigade, and ironically at least at one stage I believe Palmer was one advocating an open up and let it rip policy.

He's loaded, surely he can just buy a batch of Trump's or Rogan's miracle cure and get straight back to work like it's a sniffle!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - LP - 02-25-2022

With Omicron having a wide impact I'm noticing a lot of people returning to work with persistent coughs, and what I might describe as mental fogginess, lethargy / fatigue, etc., etc..

The mental fogginess might well be a result of the cough, with potential poor sleep patterns as a result, it could be slightly reduce oxygen levels if lungs are at reduced capacity. Some of their doctors are advising them that these symptoms might persist for up to 3 months after the infection.

So much for a bit of a sniffle, I can't say I've ever had a cold that still affects me weeks or months later!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - madbluboy - 02-25-2022

For me it was a minor sore throat and headache.
My wife the same.
6 year old had a temperature for 3 days.
5 year old had a temperature for 1 day.