Gyroscopic Investing

Kbg wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 11:32 am This is my favorite COVID conspiracy line...the cheap stuff works but we are going to pay billions for the new expensive cure. Who is going to pay that billions (and has paid hundreds of millions) and who is in charge?

There is a small really conceited part of me that wonders can people really not follow through on the logic and inherent contradictions in what they are saying? Apparently not.

I spent some time looking into all of this last week and I came a way really mixed and must say I can’t form an opinion. The info is just too mixed. The cocktail seems to have some pretty compelling anecdotal evidence and does not appear to have had any good testing. The one thing I did learn was it appears to work only at a certain phase and must be done early or it doesn’t work.

Meanwhile, it seems the UK did some pretty extensive studies and nothing suggested the stuff does much good.

What I don’t get, why doesn’t Trump order some studies if the stuff is so great? Perhaps he fears the answer? I would think we would want to put this one to bed...nah, conspiracy is much more useful politically.

Thank you for stating ALL the obvious!

Vinny

I remember that Trump leaned on the FDA to authorize hcq use for prospective randomized clinical trials. But when reports of cardiac arrhythmias surfaced, the trials were stopped. There are a number of retrospective, correlative studies with mixed results but these aren’t helpful.

If Trump had ordered the FDA to reverse its decision, you can imagine how that would have been reported. Pretty sure the media would have trotted out the H word. So I don’t think he had much choice really.

I’m using Siri here. Everything that I read on the heart issue was it totally depends on size of the dosage. For standard dosages, not an issue. Apparently one has to give extremely large dosages for heart issues. But I am completely going to defer to WiseOne on this stuff. Again back to logic, we do know there is extensive use of this drug for malaria and other tropical diseases. So I’m going to guess if we had serious heart related issues, we won’t be using the drug for those things.

What am I missing?

Kbg wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 11:32 am This is my favorite COVID conspiracy line...the cheap stuff works but we are going to pay billions for the new expensive cure. Who is going to pay that billions (and has paid hundreds of millions) and who is in charge?

I am guessing the Hope is Insurance Companies/AKA You.. or the Government/ AKA You.. Pick up the Tab on the new drugs.

shekels wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 2:08 pm

Kbg wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 11:32 am This is my favorite COVID conspiracy line...the cheap stuff works but we are going to pay billions for the new expensive cure. Who is going to pay that billions (and has paid hundreds of millions) and who is in charge?

I am guessing the Hope is Insurance Companies/AKA You.. or the Government/ AKA You.. Pick up the Tab on the new drugs.

Maybe, but if the purported cocktail works then I am not that cynical. Doctors would be using the stuff all over the world. To me you can’t argue both sides. Cocktail works or it doesn’t, if it doesn’t Yep we’re going to pay tons of money. If it really did pretty sureMost on the line doctors are going to do the ethical thing.

Also let’s look at the business side of things. I imagine drug companies CEOs would do the math and make a decision if putting a bunch of money into some new drug that doesn’t really do more than other drugs is going to be worth their investment. So if you’re a capitalist you think like this. Accordingly, why would you spend all the time and effort that you could lose particularly if you’re lateCranking out something that is already covered by another drug?

Kbg wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 2:11 pm

Maybe, but if the purported cocktail works then I am not that cynical. Doctors would be using the stuff all over the world. To me you can’t argue both sides. Cocktail works or it doesn’t, if it doesn’t Yep we’re going to pay tons of money. If it really did pretty sureMost on the line doctors are going to do the ethical thing.

This I believe is just one instance of FDA Establishment denying the use of HCQ, there are more cases of refusals.
Also HCQ is being used off label and some pharmacy are refusing to fill prescriptions.
So from what I can tell ethical doctors are getting push back from the establishment for using HCQ along with Zinc/Zpak.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/health ... 360940001/

shekels wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 2:22 pm

Kbg wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 2:11 pm

Maybe, but if the purported cocktail works then I am not that cynical. Doctors would be using the stuff all over the world. To me you can’t argue both sides. Cocktail works or it doesn’t, if it doesn’t Yep we’re going to pay tons of money. If it really did pretty sureMost on the line doctors are going to do the ethical thing.

This I believe is just one instance of FDA Establishment denying the use of HCQ, there are more cases of refusals.
Also HCQ is being used off label and some pharmacy are refusing to fill prescriptions.
So from what I can tell ethical doctors are getting push back from the establishment for using HCQ along with Zinc/Zpak.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/health ... 360940001/

Right now HCQ is cheap and more abundant than some drug of the future. What is available to the 2nd and 3rd World Countries.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 98030.html

But I am not a Doctor. I don't attempt to play one on the Internet so good Luck to us all.
Politics seems to be have dipped it hand into HCQ debate that is why I don't take the MSM at it's word.

WiseOne wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 1:03 pm I remember that Trump leaned on the FDA to authorize hcq use for prospective randomized clinical trials. But when reports of cardiac arrhythmias surfaced, the trials were stopped. There are a number of retrospective, correlative studies with mixed results but these aren’t helpful.

If Trump had ordered the FDA to reverse its decision, you can imagine how that would have been reported. Pretty sure the media would have trotted out the H word. So I don’t think he had much choice really.

I would think prospective studies, directed towards the indication of Covid, would take a very long time, even with out the apparent increased risk of arrhythmias. Retrospective studies of HCQ would center around outcomes for other indications. I was involved in the pharmaceutical industry all my working life, and it seems doubtful to me that a company is going to put it's head on the legal chopping block to seek FDA approval using retrospective data, even with a potential "black box" warning. What do you think?

Lonestar wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 2:47 pm

WiseOne wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 1:03 pm I remember that Trump leaned on the FDA to authorize hcq use for prospective randomized clinical trials. But when reports of cardiac arrhythmias surfaced, the trials were stopped. There are a number of retrospective, correlative studies with mixed results but these aren’t helpful.

If Trump had ordered the FDA to reverse its decision, you can imagine how that would have been reported. Pretty sure the media would have trotted out the H word. So I don’t think he had much choice really.

I would think prospective studies, directed towards the indication of Covid, would take a very long time, even with out the apparent increased risk of arrhythmias. Retrospective studies of HCQ would center around outcomes for other indications. I was involved in the pharmaceutical industry all my working life, and it seems doubtful to me that a company is going to put it's head on the legal chopping block to seek FDA approval using retrospective data, even with a potential "black box" warning. What do you think?

You are probably right. Just because it works for one thing and might work for another, you'd probably still need it to go through rigorous testing for the other, just like a vaccine is now.

Again, contradictions. Hundreds of doctors have treated hundreds of patients, right? That’s how we know it’s so successful, right?One in a popular video claims over 400 by her a lone in Houston with what 10 doctors behind her? One can only assume they were legit doctors who agreed in front of the Supreme Court no less and are doing the same thing.

Certainly some pharmacies may be restricting, anything is possible. But isn’t the real question is it wide spread?

Pretty much anything is almost always possible...and this is a well known rhetorical technique used on people who aren’t super great on critical thinking skills. Personally my facts and evidence standard requires a decent amount of both. To be clear, we are talking probabilities, admitted. I just happen to like mine higher rather than lower. If you are into lower, super. Your brain, your life. Who am I to say how you navigate both?

I saw a Youtube the other day where a Doctor said that when he has a COVID patient he asks them first whether they are Democrats or Republicans before prescribing medicine. That's because his usual prescription is for HCQ but if they are Dems he needs to tread lightly and ask if they are okay with that. Apparently a lot of them arent't.

Pretty sad state of affairs.

pp4me wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 3:53 pm I saw a Youtube the other day where a Doctor said that when he has a COVID patient he asks them first whether they are Democrats or Republicans before prescribing medicine. That's because his usual prescription is for HCQ but if they are Dems he needs to tread lightly and ask if they are okay with that. Apparently a lot of them arent't.

Pretty sad state of affairs.

Sounds okay to me, as it should to both Republicans who think it works and Democrats who think it is lethal.

Lonestar wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 2:47 pm

WiseOne wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 1:03 pm I remember that Trump leaned on the FDA to authorize hcq use for prospective randomized clinical trials. But when reports of cardiac arrhythmias surfaced, the trials were stopped. There are a number of retrospective, correlative studies with mixed results but these aren’t helpful.

If Trump had ordered the FDA to reverse its decision, you can imagine how that would have been reported. Pretty sure the media would have trotted out the H word. So I don’t think he had much choice really.

I would think prospective studies, directed towards the indication of Covid, would take a very long time

Not so. A couple of months at most, if conducted in hospitals crammed with COVID patients. No industry sponsor needed because the drugs are generic and cheap. In fact, I'm involved with a trial involving a generic drug (unrelated to COVID) right now, aiming to recruit just 10 patients. Research faculty and divisions generally have existing funds that could have been raided to pay for the HCQ & placebo pills, or you could have written a quickie NIH administrative supplement. IRB protocols were being super-expedited taking maybe 2 or 3 days to approval. If there's a big effect you don't need more than a handful of patients (maybe 30 or 40) in each arm - the trials requiring thousands of patients are because the drug has a minimal effect or only a small number of people are expected to have the outcome you want to avoid (e.g. death). That number would have been recruited in about a day in NYC back in March, where the daily new case counts hit 7,000. Then you just wait for outcomes, which is a matter of a few weeks. Given the situation, a report at 1 or 2 weeks, e.g. # recovered vs. still on vent vs. died, would have been appropriate.

If I were an infectious disease faculty member that's totally what I would have done. Sure, you could follow up with a bigger study if the small one was inconclusive, and you would have needed a bigger study (maybe 100 in each arm) if you wanted to see what happened when you gave it to, say, members of vulnerable populations at initial presentation.

I remember thinking that someone must be doing all these things at my hospital. I'm incredulous that this wasn't the case. There were some retrospective studies but those are honestly worthless for all kinds of reasons.

pp4me wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 3:53 pm I saw a Youtube the other day where a Doctor said that when he has a COVID patient he asks them first whether they are Democrats or Republicans before prescribing medicine. That's because his usual prescription is for HCQ but if they are Dems he needs to tread lightly and ask if they are okay with that. Apparently a lot of them arent't.

Pretty sad state of affairs.

That deserves a huge: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Vinny

Kbg wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 3:36 pm

Pretty much anything is almost always possible...and this is a well known rhetorical technique used on people who aren’t super great on critical thinking skills. Personally my facts and evidence standard requires a decent amount of both. To be clear, we are talking probabilities, admitted. I just happen to like mine higher rather than lower. If you are into lower, super. Your brain, your life. Who am I to say how you navigate both?

When time is of the essence, you take your chances anyway you can.
With so many people's lives are in the balance.

shekels wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 6:24 pm

Kbg wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 3:36 pm

Pretty much anything is almost always possible...and this is a well known rhetorical technique used on people who aren’t super great on critical thinking skills. Personally my facts and evidence standard requires a decent amount of both. To be clear, we are talking probabilities, admitted. I just happen to like mine higher rather than lower. If you are into lower, super. Your brain, your life. Who am I to say how you navigate both?

When time is of the essence, you take your chances anyway you can.
With so many people's lives are in the balance.

Pretty sure I’ve been clear I’m not anti. Just pointing out the inconsistencies of the conspiracy theories. Occam’s razor is a good approach to a lot of things.

Kbg wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 8:44 pm

shekels wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 6:24 pm

Kbg wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 3:36 pm

Pretty much anything is almost always possible...and this is a well known rhetorical technique used on people who aren’t super great on critical thinking skills. Personally my facts and evidence standard requires a decent amount of both. To be clear, we are talking probabilities, admitted. I just happen to like mine higher rather than lower. If you are into lower, super. Your brain, your life. Who am I to say how you navigate both?

When time is of the essence, you take your chances anyway you can.
With so many people's lives are in the balance.

Pretty sure I’ve been clear I’m not anti. Just pointing out the inconsistencies of the conspiracy theories. Occam’s razor is a good approach to a lot of things.

CONSPIRACY THEORIES

3 Reasons Why We Fall for Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracies give simple and straightforward explanations for complex and dynamic events or situations, but they also foster distrust and impede problem-solving. Here's how to combat them.

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/351093

Vinny

yankees60 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 9:05 pm


CONSPIRACY THEORIES

3 Reasons Why We Fall for Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracies give simple and straightforward explanations for complex and dynamic events or situations, but they also foster distrust and impede problem-solving. Here's how to combat them.

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/351093

Vinny

But when the Theories turn out to be Real. Then what?

We just change the Narrative to Distract you with some other crisis.

Are you distracted Yet?


3. More than 100 million Americans received a polio vaccine contaminated with a potentially cancer-causing virus.

https://www.businessinsider.com/true-go ... es-2013-12

Getting back on track.

Who is Joe. Dishonest or Dumb.

https://youtu.be/Ril6iYBO9Xk

Mandatory buybacks is just a another way of saying confiscation.

shekels wrote: ↑Sat Aug 15, 2020 9:05 am

yankees60 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 9:05 pm


CONSPIRACY THEORIES

3 Reasons Why We Fall for Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracies give simple and straightforward explanations for complex and dynamic events or situations, but they also foster distrust and impede problem-solving. Here's how to combat them.

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/351093

Vinny

But when the Theories turn out to be Real. Then what?

We just change the Narrative to Distract you with some other crisis.

Are you distracted Yet?


3. More than 100 million Americans received a polio vaccine contaminated with a potentially cancer-causing virus.

https://www.businessinsider.com/true-go ... es-2013-12

Yes, the truth is out there.

shekels wrote: ↑Sat Aug 15, 2020 9:15 am Mandatory buybacks is just a another way of saying confiscation.

Sounds like New Zealand. Frightening.

Wow, seven pages of... not much.

Who can actually make a case FOR Biden/Harris?

Cortopassi thinks they can give good speeches and deliver "all the feels" (my words, not his). Okay. Is that it?

What about policies? For those longing for what used to be the status quo, it sure doesn't look like that's what Biden/Harris have in mind. What actual policies of theirs are most important to you?

flyingpylon wrote: ↑Sat Aug 15, 2020 12:21 pm Wow, seven pages of... not much.

Who can actually make a case FOR Biden/Harris?

Cortopassi thinks they can give good speeches and deliver "all the feels" (my words, not his). Okay. Is that it?

What about policies? For those longing for what used to be the status quo, it sure doesn't look like that's what Biden/Harris have in mind. What actual policies of theirs are most important to you?

It's not all about policies. It's about hiring someone to do a job.

In prior campaigns who campaigned on policies on how they'd handle a pandemic, a financial crisis, a 9/11?

Therefore I want to hire someone to do the job who has the intelligence and competence and diligence to get the job done.

Trump seems to fail on all counts.

Biden is one of the worst choices the Democrats could have made but at least it would be an end to the reign of Trump. Someone who may or not be intelligent but refuses to be diligent in applying any intelligence to the tasks at hand and has proven to be incompetent in so many ways.

There was nothing to suggest he'd be qualified to do the job and his performance has just proven his how unqualified he was.

Vinny

...There was nothing to suggest he'd be qualified to do the job and his performance has just proven his how unqualified he was...

Because anyone could design, build, pay taxes on, and manage a 98 story building in downtown Chicago?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Int ... _(Chicago)