Coronavirus

RaiderDawg78

All American
Sep 7, 2005
3,828
1,211
113
This is wrong.

The picture is someone wearing a positive pressure encapsulation suit in a BSL-4 laboratory while working with risk group (RG) 4 viruses.

SARs-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is a RG3 virus. You can work with concentrated cultures of SARS-CoV-2 in a BSL-3 and conduct diagnostic work with clinical specimens at BSL-2 with slightly enhanced PPE. For a point of reference, MT has BSL-2 labs.
 

RaiderDawg78

All American
Sep 7, 2005
3,828
1,211
113
facebook, youtube and other sites have censored this:

American doctors address covid-19 misinformation
One of the “expert” doctors in this video thinks many gynecological issues such as cysts are caused by women having sex with demons and witches in their sleep, that scientists are cooking up vaccines that cause people not to be religious and that our government is run by reptilians and aliens is credible.
 

RaiderDawg78

All American
Sep 7, 2005
3,828
1,211
113
This woman literally said ovarian cysts are from women having sex with demons and witches in their dreams. And the reptilians running government, that’s her. Do you honestly find a person who believes these things is credible?

The FDA, which is run by a Trump appointee, reviewed HCQ data and said it has safety issues for those with COVID and data show it’s not effective. Do you honestly think a Trump appointee would stop a drug Trump bragged about unless the evidence is clear?
 

MTLynn

Hall of Famer
Jan 27, 2003
7,685
1,154
113
If she said that the sky was blue, or maybe she believed in global warming, would you question her credibility?

Other doctors are vouching for HCQ as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hop45

RaiderDawg78

All American
Sep 7, 2005
3,828
1,211
113
If she said that the sky was blue, or maybe she believed in global warming, would you question her credibility?

Other doctors are vouching for HCQ as well.
I wouldn’t listen to that woman for anything.

For goodness man, read the actual side effects here. The FDA publishes the report. They clearly why the pulled approval and the safety issues. This isn’t social media or Alien sperm lady.

If the data supports it safely, I can 100% guarantee you Trump will get it approved by his appointee.
 

MTLynn

Hall of Famer
Jan 27, 2003
7,685
1,154
113
Kodak will make hydroxychloroquine, the medicine that Trump has promoted as a treatment for COVID-19

Kodak launching new pharmaceuticals arm

By Noah Manskar

July 28, 2020

The phrase “Kodak moment” could soon have a new meaning.

Kodak, a 132-year-old camera company, is launching a new pharmaceuticals arm with help from Uncle Sam, officials announced Tuesday.

The Trump administration awarded the onetime photography titan $765 million under the Defense Production Act to make ingredients for a wide range of drugs in an effort to reduce the US’s dependence on foreign drug manufacturers. It’s the first such loan awarded under the DPA program.

“By leveraging our vast infrastructure, deep expertise in chemicals manufacturing, and heritage of innovation and quality, Kodak will play a critical role in the return of a reliable American pharmaceutical supply chain,” Kodak executive chairman Jim Continenza said in a statement.

The news sent Kodak’s stock price up as much as 350 percent to $11.80 Tuesday morning. The shares were recently trading at $8.76, more than triple Monday’s close of $2.62.

One of the drugs for which Kodak will make ingredients is hydroxychloroquine, the anti-malaria medicine that President Trump has promoted as a treatment for COVID-19, according to The Wall Street Journal, which first reported on the deal. The Food and Drug Administration has said the drug does not help coronavirus patients recover faster or reduce their chance of death.

Kodak’s loan from the US International Development Finance Corporation will directly support 360 jobs, indirectly support 1,200 others, and help the company expand its existing facilities in Rochester, New York and St. Paul, Minnesota, officials said.

It’s the first use of an executive order Trump signed in May enabling the corporation to support the production of “strategic resources” needed to fight the coronavirus pandemic under the Defense Production Act. Trump has also used the Korean War-era law to shore up supplies of ventilators and respirator masks.

Federal officials noted that Americans consume roughly 40 percent of the world’s supply of bulk generic drug ingredients, but only 10 percent of those materials are made in the US.

“If we have learned anything from the global pandemic, it is that Americans are dangerously dependent on foreign supply chains for their essential medicines,” White House trade adviser Peter Navarro said in a statement.
 

dukewayne

All American
Jul 11, 2008
2,216
830
113
This woman literally said ovarian cysts are from women having sex with demons and witches in their dreams. And the reptilians running government, that’s her. Do you honestly find a person who believes these things is credible?

The FDA, which is run by a Trump appointee, reviewed HCQ data and said it has safety issues for those with COVID and data show it’s not effective. Do you honestly think a Trump appointee would stop a drug Trump bragged about unless the evidence is clear?
Funny how things work. So, I go to research the actual evidence of supposedly what this WOC said. Funny, I couldn't find it. The source article from a known leftist political hack site linked to an article that said no such thing or were grossly taken out of context. The other links were broken or just dead. Funny how that works. Smear a person with the most detestable outrageous claims, then fellow travelers aka political allies censor the same WOC on just about all social media websites so that she can't speak out for herself or any claims be verified or defended. Then voila, person discredited. Message for govt and Big Pharma remain in tact with the sleeping masses.

Frankly, I have no idea about this women. Maybe she made outrageous claims, maybe she didn't. I don't know especially now that she is being erased and thrown into the memory hole. Under any other situation this would be considered a horrible example of racism utilizing some of the worst African stereotypes against a WOC. It's disgusting.

Regardless of what she has elsewhere said or didn't say, countless other doctors are coming forward and saying the same thing. Because I'm someone who keeps up and am generally well informed, I see many of these comments and interviews in video.....just before Big Tech censors them. Their videos, articles, and websites are quickly removed in a way that would have made Stalin proud.

It's one thing to have a differing opinion. Fine, disagree and make the supporting point. Smearing and censoring people is driving many other people to the other cause when such viscous, authoritarian, and Orwellian acts of power are being implemented against any and all who speak up with a dissenting opinion. Opinions from highly educated and credentialed experts across the world.
 

RaiderDawg78

All American
Sep 7, 2005
3,828
1,211
113
Let’s start with this woman. it took me less than a minute to find a video of her saying demons can join you in sex and these evil spirits cause ovarian cysts and all types of gynecological issues. I stopped the video at the 3:07 mark. If someone says crazy things, like this woman, I will call a spade a spade.

Let’s talk specifically about HCQ. The FDA reviewed safety data and said that it’s not effective and it has serious side effects for Covid patients. That’s not political, that’s the current data about HCQ.

The way it normally works is if better scientific evidence is generated, then you go to the FDA, present your findings and they change drug recommendations based on science. But in the world of COVID, that’s not what is happening with HCQ. We have people go on social media with anecdotal evidence, make a claim without data and they are taken as credible. If what they say is true, why don’t they go to the FDA with those data like normal instead of social media?

The worst thing that happened with HCQ was Trump talking about it. If he had not mentioned it, it would have been tested (like other drugs), FDA would have made its recommendation and no one would be talking about it anymore.

So the question is, should a company (twitter, YouTube) give a platform for misinformation presented as credible that is not backed by science and could hurt people? If someone touted bloodletting, should YouTube give them a platform? If someone in Kyrgyzstan says they bled a Covid patient in their village and it helped, so Bloodletting is effective treating COVID, should YouTube give that video a platform knowing what we know about bloodletting?

It’s incredibly sad to me that people are getting hurt and dying because of misinformation about COVID19. Being a conservative scientist during this pandemic has been difficult.
 

dukewayne

All American
Jul 11, 2008
2,216
830
113
As I said, I don't know the women. Censoring her only added to the confusion when trying to uncover the facts. The one article that I did find was her asserting what she said was taken out of context of a complicated discussion. My point here is not to assert that she did or didn't say something. My alarm is the pattern of censorship and smearing of anyone that presents an opposing opinion.

So, if someone presents ideas contrary to the govt's established position, they should be silenced or censored? Really? That is where we are now as a nation?

If someone makes a claim about bloodletting, why censor them when anyone with 2 brain cells would know it's a bogus claim. Instead of censoring those people, a better response would be to offer truth, facts, and evidence to address the situation. The truth will win out. When censorship enters the arena, it's an admission that evidence is not on the side of those doing the censoring. History has demonstrated this over and over.

Have the debate. Demonstrate the evidence. Censoring the opposition will drive people to the side of the censored. History has demonstrated this again and again.

The reason for my strong reaction to this is that this has moved beyond scientific debate to freedom or tyranny. With tyranny, you can kiss genuine science good bye. Science becomes what the tyrants proclaim or declare.
 

MTLynn

Hall of Famer
Jan 27, 2003
7,685
1,154
113
The reason for my strong reaction to this is that this has moved beyond scientific debate to freedom or tyranny. With tyranny, you can kiss genuine science good bye. Science becomes what the tyrants proclaim or declare.
It's book burning
 

RaiderDawg78

All American
Sep 7, 2005
3,828
1,211
113
As I said, I don't know the women. Censoring her only added to the confusion when trying to uncover the facts. The one article that I did find was her asserting what she said was taken out of context of a complicated discussion. My point here is not to assert that she did or didn't say something. My alarm is the pattern of censorship and smearing of anyone that presents an opposing opinion.

So, if someone presents ideas contrary to the govt's established position, they should be silenced or censored? Really? That is where we are now as a nation?

If someone makes a claim about bloodletting, why censor them when anyone with 2 brain cells would know it's a bogus claim. Instead of censoring those people, a better response would be to offer truth, facts, and evidence to address the situation. The truth will win out. When censorship enters the arena, it's an admission that evidence is not on the side of those doing the censoring. History has demonstrated this over and over.

Have the debate. Demonstrate the evidence. Censoring the opposition will drive people to the side of the censored. History has demonstrated this again and again.

The reason for my strong reaction to this is that this has moved beyond scientific debate to freedom or tyranny. With tyranny, you can kiss genuine science good bye. Science becomes what the tyrants proclaim or declare.

I agree with you about government censorship.

The govt didn’t censor her though. Private companies removed content from their platform. I am opposed to the fairness doctrine, whether it’s on TV, radio or social media. I do not think private companies should be forced to present content they do not agree with on their platform, especially if they believe that content is false or could hurt someone. Like rivals could delete my posts here, so can other companies on their sites. If I don’t like it, I go somewhere else. That’s not censorship or tyranny.


You don’t debate drug efficacy on social media. You present your data in publications that others can reproduce and you get a drug company that makes HCQ to apply for its use in Covid19 patients and presents your data to support its safety and effectiveness. I am skeptical of any person who says they have a drug that works, but data doesn’t support them and they don’t provide affirmative data for themselves. Going to social media tells me you don’t have real data.
 

MTLynn

Hall of Famer
Jan 27, 2003
7,685
1,154
113
Can you explain your rationale for why a private company should be forced to present content they don’t agree with or violates their user rules?
It's a copyright issue but all of this nonsense wouldn't be happening if it were not an election year.



 

dukewayne

All American
Jul 11, 2008
2,216
830
113
I agree with you about government censorship.

The govt didn’t censor her though. Private companies removed content from their platform. I am opposed to the fairness doctrine, whether it’s on TV, radio or social media. I do not think private companies should be forced to present content they do not agree with on their platform, especially if they believe that content is false or could hurt someone. Like rivals could delete my posts here, so can other companies on their sites. If I don’t like it, I go somewhere else. That’s not censorship or tyranny.


You don’t debate drug efficacy on social media. You present your data in publications that others can reproduce and you get a drug company that makes HCQ to apply for its use in Covid19 patients and presents your data to support its safety and effectiveness. I am skeptical of any person who says they have a drug that works, but data doesn’t support them and they don’t provide affirmative data for themselves. Going to social media tells me you don’t have real data.
You have a couple of issues I'd like to weigh in on. First up though is your starting to present issues related to all this big mess is much more helpful. Just from knowing you around the message board for a handful of years, I know you have knowledge and experience in the relevant field. I also usually find your input on most topics around here (sports and otherwise) to be informative, interesting, and with which I typically agree with you on a large amount. I say that as someone like yourself that comments on these matters that I actually do contemplate and consider your supporting arguments, reason, and solid reliable evidence. Like many, I'm trying to pick up good info the best I can in these turbulent times when good fact based info and evidence can be found. In short, I can be swayed on these matters with good solid supporting evidence.

Now onto some of the aforementioned topics. I get that private concerns or organizations should generally have a control over their product or services. The problem is that with Big Tech, things are not quite that simple.

Big Tech, the media, and the govt sold us, the American people, that social media was the new town square where all Americans can freely participate with free and open speech as long as that speech does not violate the laws of land, i.e. state & federal laws. As such, the fed govt granted Big Tech a huge carve out, Section 230 I believe it is called, that most other corps, media, and people do not have protection under. The Federal Govt granted the Big Tech firms like Google, Facebook, and Twitter legal protections from lawsuits over info posted onto their social media sites. Big Tech argument was that they are like a town square or a bulletin board that facilitates free speech. They argue that they should not be held liable for content placed on their social media forums as they are not editors such as newspapers or TV & Radio stations. So most of America was all in with open access and free speech for all. Big Tech was protected from any lawsuits on said content. These social media giants ended up making TRILLIONS of $$$$$ with worldwide reach and influence.

Then 2016 happened. Trump, a political establishment outsider won the Presidency with his use of social media engaging grass roots people as a mechanism for getting to office. I don't think I have to tell you that the Big Tech executives that give millions of $$ to establishment DC and the Hillary campaign were embarrassed that they let their DC friends down. Immediately after the election, they started vowing that this would never happen again in America. Videos can still be of some of these statements if you look online hard enough. The famous one was the video of all the top Google execs in a meeting with all their top management crying that they lost the election and would not allow it to happen again. You may remember that.

Within a year or so, the censorship of grassroots voices, pro-Trump people, and generally anyone anti-DC Establishment began. I saw it first hand as I try to gather my news info from a variety of sources and am hesitant to trust just one source. Since then, the censorship has accelerated. On any given day, people I know or follow on social media disappear. They are banned, removed, and thrown into the memory hole along with all of the content that they had placed on social media, particularly YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook. Some who placed hundreds are even thousands of hours of work content onto these platforms. To these people, this erasing or destroying of all their informational content is tantamount to burning of their books.

These Big Tech behemoths promised free and open access that was unedited as long as said content did not break the law. Well, they no longer abide by that standard, yet the law is still in place preventing people from any legal recourse or due process. As I'm sure you see without my long winded rambling that these Social Media giants stopped following the rules they established after they convinced, encouraged, or promoted all people to freely utilize their social media services and established themselves as worldwide power players essentially controlling information. In my opinion, they stopped playing by the rules once they became monopolies.

My point is that if these Big Tech giants want to censor people on their platforms, then they should no longer be afforded protection by the Federal govt preventing people from legal recourse. If they were to start being sued by countless people for mistreatment, slander, lack of due process, etc etc, etc, for hundreds of millions of $$$ each along with the bad press, they just might start to think twice before censoring people.

Enter COVID and the contentious political environment. Now the same Big Tech are censoring doctors that are speaking openly about their opinion of a 60+ year old generic medicine that up to this time had not been controversial. Then throw in DC Established figures and media maligning and even smearing these doctors to go along with these doctors starting to be fired from their jobs, yet none of this is happening to the doctors or experts that maintain the governments stance of the DC Establishment's stance.

Regardless of what you may think of HCQ or Trump, certainly you could see this as an alarming set of actions if not downright dangerous. Today it might not get your attention that much because you happen to agree with the govt's and Establishment's stated position. What happens if next month or next week it's an issue that you believe that science points you in a contrary direction of the govt? Would you want to be censored, silenced, or even smeared because you disagreed? It may not directly be the govt censoring you, but that is exactly what is happening across the media informational spectrum for disagreeing with the govt's position.
 

dukewayne

All American
Jul 11, 2008
2,216
830
113
More posts, I'll try to shorten my lengthy diatribes. Much of last night and this morning I've spent digging deep into the issue of Censorship and COVID with focus on the HCQ angle. Frankly, it's even worse and more disturbing than I even thought.

Briefly, way more doctors, scientists, and scholars than I ever imagined are trying to sound the alarm about all of this. If you look hard enough, you will find them (and videos) of them saying they are scared to speak up because of the threats, censoring, damaged careers, and out & out smears. They usually go on to say that that they feel it necessary to speak up anyways because of the oath they took to help their patients. On top of that, they seem to have little to gain but everything to lose for speaking up.

Regarding doctors or experts speaking up by way of scholarly publishing. A couple of substantial factors stand out:

Look no further than the recent frauds perpetrated upon science and all people by the fraudulent papers recently published one in the world renown The Lancet and another in The New England Journal of Medicine about HCQ and COVID that had to be retracted in embarrassment. The media went wild with leading experts including Dr Fauci touting the research that purported to show the dangers of HCQ in a supposed worldwide dataset of over 96,000 people. The WHO even shut down their HCQ study based on that research. I'm sure I'm not the only one to remember the media widely touting this study.

Sadly, it did not seem to receive the same level of attention when within a week or two that those research papers had to be be retracted in embarrassment if not humiliation. Anyways, the message was already out to the public that does not always pay attention to retractions. Look, I'm not a medical doctor or related scientist that regularly reads all the goings-ons with the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine or The Lancet, but I imagine it's not an everyday ordeal that they have to retract entire published papers.

There are some reports by a few investigative reporters asserting that some of the main researchers tied to the disgraced retracted papers were tied to a clinic funded by the Pharma Co producing Remdesivir. I do not know that for a fact, but it does appear that more than one or two journalists are reporting that claim.

All of that leads to my main point about some of these doctors or experts trying to publish research on this matter. Again, I'm not in this field so I could be wrong, but here it goes: How about getting a drug company to get it together to do the research to support studies/research supporting the safety and/or efficacy of HCQ? My concern with this, will any real big money drug corp really going to invest in that research on a generic drug that has been around for over 60 years? A drug that many countries around the world already offer OTC. A drug that typically sells for far less than $1 a pill. Now if it's a new drug that can be sold for upwards of $1000 a dose, now that is a drug that Big Pharma corps could get behind. I imagine they would be more than happy to invest some money for that cause. For an old drug that costs next to nothing....not so much. Maybe I'm wrong and their are drug companies, etc, that are willing to spend the money for research regarding HCQ. I simply do not know what is customary or usual in that field since I do not work in it.

My point with all of this is that I could see how this situation arises where doctors and/or general experts speak up on this matter with much confusion in the air and people continuing to suffer everyday including the patients that some of these doctors are caring for on a daily basis. Sadly also at a time when this subject has even managed to compromise for at least a week or two a couple of the leading scientific journals in the world.
 

dukewayne

All American
Jul 11, 2008
2,216
830
113
I agree with you about government censorship.

The govt didn’t censor her though. Private companies removed content from their platform. I am opposed to the fairness doctrine, whether it’s on TV, radio or social media. I do not think private companies should be forced to present content they do not agree with on their platform, especially if they believe that content is false or could hurt someone. Like rivals could delete my posts here, so can other companies on their sites. If I don’t like it, I go somewhere else. That’s not censorship or tyranny.


You don’t debate drug efficacy on social media. You present your data in publications that others can reproduce and you get a drug company that makes HCQ to apply for its use in Covid19 patients and presents your data to support its safety and effectiveness. I am skeptical of any person who says they have a drug that works, but data doesn’t support them and they don’t provide affirmative data for themselves. Going to social media tells me you don’t have real data.
RaiderDawg78,

I know I rambled on at length here about my concerns with HCQ and COVID. I'm also painfully aware as my teenage kids constantly tell me I ramble on too much. Still, I wanted to take the time and engage this topic here as I believe it to be of grave importance.

Regardless of where any of us may come down on which side of this unfortunately contentious subject, I believe that you along with me would like to see the facts, the science, the truth win out regarding HCQ. Though I may lean towards one side in my opinion, I ultimately want the facts, science, the truth to win out and let the chips fall where they may. I believe that you too are of that same mind.

As you can probably tell, my biggest concern with all of this is the possible political agendas particularly those agendas manifesting an authoritarian attitude that has emerged. From what I can tell of you from posting around this message board for years is that you are not a person that wants to censor or silence critics of your position. Accordingly, I hope that you share in my alarm or even outrage at attempts by some to silence and censor dissenting views and opinions. While I certainly don't know your resume, I have gathered over the years that you could possibly be considered an expert in this field.

With this in mind, I hope you might see why I'm taking the extra time to argue for and speak up for what appears to be an effort by some established figures in govt, science, and tech/media industry to silence and censor opposing points of view. I also imagine that you would agree that real science cannot be pursued if a chilling and menacing wind of censorship is blowing throughout those doctors, scientists, and experts presenting opinions, ideas, and analysis that must be worked through to arrive at any legitimate conclusions or even some sort of consensus. As history has taught us about freedom and particularly freedom of speech, it may be you or me that the censors come for next time if they prevail in silencing those with opposing views this time.
 

RaiderDawg78

All American
Sep 7, 2005
3,828
1,211
113
That was an epic rant!

So unpacking it a little.

The worst part of dealing with this public health crisis is politics.

The second worst part of dealing with this is social media.

I wish HCQ didn’t cause severe side effects and was as effective across the board as some people say on social media. If you have a couple minutes, I invite you to watch this video from Dr. Stephen Hahn. He’s the conservative Trump appointee over the FDA. You can find Scott Gottlieb, the former Head of the FDA and also a Trump guy saying pretty much the same thing as Hahn.

As a scientist,it frustrates me that top Trump guys look at the overall body of data and says HCQ isn’t effective, but some people get on social media and say it is without providing data. Then conservatives ignore what the Trump experts say and listen to social media sound bites.

I am not surprised that the crazies in the anti-fascist Antifa attacks everything they see linked to Trump and fascism. It is also not surprising that progressive/Marxists hijacked a concept of ensuring individual liberty for all & twisted it to push a communist agenda that seems like a religion.

I am equally not surprised that alt-right fascists and racists have hijacked patriotism and the weakening of Christianity into cultural Christianity to push conservatism to a really bigoted presentation of the ideas in the constitution.

The classical liberal, republican, and federalist are gone. We have polarized to hatred of people in both sides instead of hating ideas. Throw in the loony conspiracy theorists and a Trump as a lightening rod and you get this ugly place. Instead of debating ideas, we push so hard at each side, both sides thinking the other people are evil, that we push the divide further apart. If something doesn’t give, the idea of a democratic republic will fail from the inside. We need to find a way to humanize even those we absolutely disagree with on everything and find common ground as Americans or this divide will continue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dukewayne

RaiderDawg78

All American
Sep 7, 2005
3,828
1,211
113
Why do we not allow HCQ for COVID-19? -The data does not support it is an effective treatment.

Decades of safety testing isn’t enough. - Like many drugs, it is safe for people in some situations, but NOT safe for those with COVID-19, which we have 7 months of testing data.

Lockdowns have occurred locally across the world in the past. Happened for 1918, yellow fever, smallpox and plague across the world.

lockdowns hurt the economy. - Agreed, they should not happen except locally in areas where the ICU/hospitals are at capacity and only to flatten the localized curve.
 

dukewayne

All American
Jul 11, 2008
2,216
830
113
A slightly delayed response to one issue regarding credibility of Trump appointees to general Trump supporters.

Many a Trump supporter do not trust many of the people in his administration. Personally, I think Trump's possibly biggest failing has been his overall selection of staff and appointees. He has repeatedly brought in people for his administration from the same sewer of DC that most Americans are wanting cleaned up in the first place. Exhibit A is Sessions. Wray is exhibit B. They leak. They undermine him, and reports are numerous of many flatly refusing to follow directives or orders.

All of this is consistent with the reality that the upper tier of bureaucratic DC believes that they are in charge of America and elected politicians are just temporary residents in DC.

That is my opinion why general Trump supporters put little to no stock in what many in his own administration have to say. Personally, the system is so corrupt that I don't trust hardly anything anyone has to say from DC.
 

MTLynn

Hall of Famer
Jan 27, 2003
7,685
1,154
113
There isn't much profit in Hydroxychloroquine - and it's why drug companies want you to take a more expensive vaccine

 

dukewayne

All American
Jul 11, 2008
2,216
830
113
With that corrupt sewer of DC and most any corporations, follow the money is a fairly solid and reliable axiom.

Especially with corrupt DC, greed and money factor largely but sometimes the pursuit of raw power is the best explanation. With pursuit of power, usually money plays a key role. It's sort of difficult to separate money from power. They go hand and hand for the most part.