One idea I plan to discuss with a doctor is to get booster shots of one or more of the attenuated live virus vaccines. They seem to prime the immune system against all comers.
Dr. Paul Marik - Ivermectin, Vit. C, Vit. D, Zinc, Quercetin
These two seem competent to me.
The thing that's bad, very bad, about the internet is its tendency for people to post, without a solid foundation, "possible" things. In the olden days, ideas were bounced around and there was a filter before things were public.
Today, the information aqueduct is full of effluent from people who think they might have a grand idea, but nothing's certain yet, and so we're hit with a firehose of stinky unproven "solutions."
That is why I referred to my crap detector.
Like I mentioned in another thread somewhere, I have been taking C, D and zinc for many years as an anti Corona virus aka common cold virus preventative or mitagator. Never heard of the Quercetin or Ivermectin before now. I will read the link but I am very cautious about what I will add to my existing daily regime.
When I was hospitalized back in the beginning, March 15 for possible CV 19, those 3 items were provided to me in my regular doses by my own insistence that are on record from my oncology treatment med list.
I'm 68, with Stage IV cancer, emphysema and chronic bronchitis for openers. I am also a recognized essential healthcare worker by profession. But liquor store clerks are also recognized as essential workers, so big deal. I get about as close to someone's face as possible short of kissing them and touch their faces and heads and their generally filthy glasses straight off of their faces. Many are perfect strangers to me. I doubt that anyone else here other than SteelyD gets closer to people than me.
I have to work as being on disability the last 10 earning years for social security pretty much screwed any chance of completely retiring on it. I must work until I die. Or someone else dies and leaves me $100 k. I say this as a fact. Not looking for any sympathy or even understanding for that matter. It is just a fact of my life. So I am putting my life and mouth where my money is. I'm gonna die from something beyond my control sooner or later.
The only thing I can look forward to is one of the vaccines that were never supposed to be ready before the end of the year based on what all the scientists said and get one. Being in the risk and professional categories that I am, the wife and I should get first crack at one of them. But even if I do get one, the ordinary flu can still kill me just as easily.
I do not have the luxury of fear. I must get up, get out of bed and go to work, regardless, as long as the doors are not closed by some public health dictate. Same realization as growing up during the Cold War and all of the 'duck and cover" drills. You can't hide yourself away from something that may never happen or is beyond your control.
There are no guarantees in life. And that is how I was raised and that is how I live and will eventually die. I will die walking the talk.
I'm not trying to prove anything or anybody right or anybody wrong. I just do not have a choice in this. Which actually makes this easier to do.
So rhahl, do you reckon the sweet spot is 60 to 69 years old?
Too old to party like there is no tomorrow (and consequences). Young enough to still have good immunity.
In other words, "old" but not too old.
That's me, 60 - 69. Not too old, yes, but I don't think the difference is good immunity. It's more about being able to take care of ourselves. So, no exposure to caregivers, or offspring who must help with things only family can do, and no job anymore (especially in France, I think). We have the option not to party at all.
Dr. Paul Marik - Ivermectin, Vit. C, Vit. D, Zinc, Quercetin
These two seem competent to me.
The thing that's bad, very bad, about the internet is its tendency for people to post, without a solid foundation, "possible" things. In the olden days, ideas were bounced around and there was a filter before things were public.
Today, the information aqueduct is full of effluent from people who think they might have a grand idea, but nothing's certain yet, and so we're hit with a firehose of stinky unproven "solutions."
One problem: In dry air, there is less mucous, and the cilia donât beat as fast or in the right direction, as new research shows. This means fewer virus particles are captured or cleared out of the respiratory tract, thus allowing more of them to reach the deepest part of our lungs, where they do the most damage.
Second, a new study shows that the coronavirus decays faster at close to 60 percent relative humidity than at other levels. While this study has not yet been peer-reviewed, there is a trove of workshowing that other viruses also decay faster in the range of 40 to 60 percent. We donât exactly know why this is the case, but we might as well take advantage of the knowledge and avoid dry conditions.
The thing that's bad, very bad, about the internet is its tendency for people to post, without a solid foundation, "possible" things. In the olden days, ideas were bounced around and there was a filter before things were public.
Today, the information aqueduct is full of effluent from people who think they might have a grand idea, but nothing's certain yet, and so we're hit with a firehose of stinky unproven "solutions."
Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, Health Minister Tyler Shandro and Dr. Deena Hinshaw, Alberta's chief medical officer of health, have been the main faces of the province's COVID-19 response. (Sam Martin/CBC, Art Raham/CBC, Jason Franson/The Canadian Press)
Apparently the United Conservative party leader and premier of Alberta Barking Mad Dog Kenney has been micro-managing the response to the pandemic. Jason Kenney has constantly required 'evidence' before adopting restrictions.
Poor man. Must have difficulty managing in a context of uncertainty. Very tough. First you "follow the people" in order to be elected and then, weird as it sounds, some people expect you to "show leadership" when it was precisely your lack of leadership that got you elected in the first place.
The US, I believe takes 40 cycles as their standard for PCR testing, I believe (which delivers potentially more false positives as compared to 37). Although, PCR -tests have only recently been introduced (in lower numbers), compared to the much more insecure antibody tests. Am I right on this?
@miami posted something about CT a few days ago in this thread.
The issue at 40 isn't that they are "false" positives...they just aren't "dangerous" anymore....aren't shedding virus.
Ooops, I'm afraid you might be amiss in your thinking. The higher the cycling of rna samples being run in a test, the higher any positive outcome. Meaning: Some say, 25 would be a reasonable and more realistic way of recycling the rna strands. Remember, the more re-cycling of rna, the higher the rate of false positive outcomes.
The US, I believe takes 40 cycles as their standard for PCR testing, I believe (which delivers potentially more false positives as compared to 37). Although, PCR -tests have only recently been introduced (in lower numbers), compared to the much more insecure antibody tests. Am I right on this?
@miami posted something about CT a few days ago in this thread.
The issue at 40 isn't that they are "false" positives...they just aren't "dangerous" anymore....aren't shedding virus.
Still I dare to question the value of the meta-analysis you named as studies above in comparison to a "real" study, published in Nature, on Nov. 20. Let me recap the abstract:
Stringent COVID-19 control measures were imposed in Wuhan between January 23 and April 8, 2020. Estimates of the prevalence of infection following the release of restrictions could inform post-lockdown pandemic management. Here, we describe a city-wide SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening programme between May 14 and June 1, 2020 in Wuhan. All city residents aged six years or older were eligible and 9,899,828 (92.9%) participated. No new symptomatic cases and 300 asymptomatic cases (detection rate 0.303/10,000, 95% CI 0.270â0.339/10,000) were identified. There were no positive tests amongst 1,174 close contacts of asymptomatic cases. 107 of 34,424 previously recovered COVID-19 patients tested positive again (re-positive rate 0.31%, 95% CI 0.423â0.574%). The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Wuhan was therefore very low five to eight weeks after the end of lockdown.
The conclusion is not that asymptomatic spread is rare or that the science is uncertain. The study revealed something that hardly ever happens in these kinds of studies. There was not one documented case. Forget rare. Forget even Fauciâs previous suggestion that asymptomatic transmission exists but not does drive the spread. Replace all that with: never. At least not in this study for 10,000,000.
A further, more daring conclusion from this study could be, to only test symptomatic cases anymore. A conclusion which I have rarely heard being re-iterated by international politicians, or health-experts, much less the MSM. The German health secretary did say this some weeks ago, perhaps more due to logistical shortcomings and strains on the existing testing-infrastructure (labs in this case), but federal politics haven't followed the idea based on science, as sticking to the usual suspects among "experts". You can guess wHO, I'm sure. Might some lobby be involved there? - Nah... nothing to see here, keep walking.
What was the false positive rate on their test? Testing almost 10 million people will give you a few no matter how good the technology. Are these their asymptomatic patients?
From the study:
Details regarding technical methods for sequencing and virus culture were provided in Supplementary note 1. Real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay method was used for the nucleic acid testing. We simultaneously amplified and tested the two target genes: open reading frame 1ab (ORF1ab) and nucleocapsid protein (N) (Supplementary Note 1). A cycle threshold value (Ct-value) less than 37 was defined as a positive result, and no Ct-value or a Ct-value of 40 or more was defined as a negative result. For Ct-values ranging from 37 to 40, the sample was retested. If the retest result remained less than 40 and the amplification curve had obvious peak, the sample was classified as positive; otherwise, it was reported as being negative. These diagnostic criteria were based on Chinaâs official recommendations16. ~ (Source - from the same study).
The US, I believe takes 40 cycles as their standard for PCR testing, I believe (which delivers potentially more false positives as compared to 37). Although, PCR -tests have only recently been introduced (in lower numbers), compared to the much more insecure antibody tests. Am I right on this?
As for a personal anecdote, certainly not to be taken as any "evidence": I know people testing positive (through PCR-testing method) who were asymptomatic and never got sick, in the timely range of 3 seasons, by now.
This article is from June. We've learned a thing or two since then. This article (with links to studies cited) is from late September. For those too lazy to follow the link: best estimates are that symptomatic patients are about twice as likely to spread the disease in any individual case. Asymptomatic patients may be less cautious around others and additional risky behavior can overwhelm the lower probability of infection by having more opportunities for infection.
Keep in mind that truly asymptomatic patients are quite rare. The really dangerous vectors are presymptomatic patientsâpeople who don't feel sick...yet.
Still I dare to question the value of the meta-analysis you named as studies above in comparison to a "real" study, published in Nature, on Nov. 20. Let me recap the abstract:
Stringent COVID-19 control measures were imposed in Wuhan between January 23 and April 8, 2020. Estimates of the prevalence of infection following the release of restrictions could inform post-lockdown pandemic management. Here, we describe a city-wide SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening programme between May 14 and June 1, 2020 in Wuhan. All city residents aged six years or older were eligible and 9,899,828 (92.9%) participated. No new symptomatic cases and 300 asymptomatic cases (detection rate 0.303/10,000, 95% CI 0.270â0.339/10,000) were identified. There were no positive tests amongst 1,174 close contacts of asymptomatic cases. 107 of 34,424 previously recovered COVID-19 patients tested positive again (re-positive rate 0.31%, 95% CI 0.423â0.574%). The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Wuhan was therefore very low five to eight weeks after the end of lockdown.
The conclusion is not that asymptomatic spread is rare or that the science is uncertain. The study revealed something that hardly ever happens in these kinds of studies. There was not one documented case. Forget rare. Forget even Fauciâs previous suggestion that asymptomatic transmission exists but not does drive the spread. Replace all that with: never. At least not in this study for 10,000,000.
A further, more daring conclusion from this study could be, to only test symptomatic cases anymore. A conclusion which I have rarely heard being re-iterated by international politicians, or health-experts, much less the MSM. The German health secretary did say this some weeks ago, perhaps more due to logistical shortcomings and strains on the existing testing-infrastructure (labs in this case), but federal politics haven't followed the idea based on science, as sticking to the usual suspects among "experts". You can guess wHO, I'm sure. Might some lobby be involved there? - Nah... nothing to see here, keep walking.
What was the false positive rate on their test? Testing almost 10 million people will give you a few no matter how good the technology. Are these their asymptomatic patients?
