This article itself is politicizing the science and medicine. Please don't take medical advice from journalists. Talk to your doctor.
If you want to weigh in on the ongoing medical debate (this is not settled science), please at least read 10 or so relevant studies first. Far too much chatter by people who don't have not put in the requisite work.
Journalists? What? It's written by a doctor and medical students.
Authors: John Havlik, Pranam Dey, and Howard P. Forman
Bios: John Havlik and Pranam Dey are medical students at Yale University. Dr. Howard P. Forman (@thehowie) is a professor of public health policy, management, economics and radiology at Yale.
Actually, he is acting as a journalist, and operating out of his specialty (Radiology), and is not clinical with Covid patients.
So, as far he goes, the most he does is sees scans of PTs, or diagnose the damage, through radiological means. Radiologists diagnose, they don't treat Covid.
Internal Medicine (less severe) & Infectious Disease (more severe) specialties treat Covid patients, supported by pulmonologists, hematologists, and the other clinical specialties as problems arise (vascular, cardiologists, etc).
> Dr. Howard P. Forman (@thehowie) is a professor of public health policy, management, economics and radiology at Yale.
I think you failed to see the "professor of public health policy" in his title. I would expect a professor of public health policy to understand how to read results of studies and then translate them to public health policies.
> I think you failed to see the "professor of public health policy" in his title.
No, I did not. Public Health Policy and an MBA are non-clinical.
Clinical Doctors that are actively treating Covid19 patients, that are actively using what will be Standard of Care using antivirals, anti-inflammatories, anticoagulants, steroids, ACE2 inhibitors, and other drugs, using well-known medical therapies for sick patients are the doctors that I want to hear from around treatment A, or treatment B. These are the doctors with the experience and the know-ho for these severe diseases.
Again, as a radiologist, or hospital mgmt, the fine doctor is not a clinical doctor actively performing these treatments with these drugs and immunotherapies. Radiologists diagnose.
This is the domain of an Infectious Diseases specialty in severe cases, and an Internist in less severe cases, with the active support of the associated other specialties (cardio/pulmonologists/vascular/etc for all the involved body parts for which there are specific specialties acutely impacted by covid).
> Public Health Policy and an MBA are non-clinical.
What does that have to do with reading and understanding studies? If you're treating patients, sure. But there are doctors that do research -- particularly those in pharma -- and in public policy.
I'm not sure why you want to continue to beat this dead dog of an argument.
This is not a dead argument. It is an example of specialists in a particular field that are the height of expertise having the best say about the pros and cons of specific medical interventions.
A younger version of myself, when I wanted to learn how to cook, realized that I needed the proper tools with which to prepare ingredients. Being uninformed and ignorant, I was bombarded with reviews of knives written by marketing folks. I did not trust their judgment because they were intent on selling me something, regardless of whether or not it was best for me with the cooking style I would adopt. Instead, I went and talked with two friends having extensive training in the culinary arts and we discussed the pros and cons of various cutlery. One of my friends had a great deal of experience with many makes and models, and could provide a wisdom about product selections. Likewise, this conversation.
The fine doctor/professor, and his 2 juniors have not actually recounted much of the medical literature on COVID 19 treatments except ones that prove their point. In doing so, they have done us a disservice by pushing a discussion in one direction, without adequately informing us of other perspectives that are more expert than they. Why are they doing this? I don't know. But, I do know of COVID treatment protocols and what they contain. There is a specific category of drugs within those protocols called antivirals. It contains a number of different antivirals, which is not really important which one (they have specific pros and cons, different mechanisms of action and some are oral, and some are IV), but the overall dismissal of what will shortly be Standard of Care for Covid19 treatment includes antivirals.
It is a dead dog of an argument. We have vaccines now, which are proven to save lives.
> The fine doctor/professor, and his 2 juniors have not actually recounted much of the medical literature on COVID 19 treatments except ones that prove their point.
Or maybe they have and refuse to believe everything written on paper should be taken as fact?
The lead author has a twitter account, I'm sure you can reach out to him to figure out if he is in fact qualified to make a claim. Let me know what you find out.
Thanks for that correction. However they are functioning like journalists here. Notice all of the judgemental, ideological, political one-sided narrative. They fail to apply Hanlon's razor as they claim at the end "[they] know exactly what they are doing." It's paranoid talk. The case for/against ivermectin is very complex and this short diatribe is not helping anyone.
They also clearly are Americans who seem to think this is an American issue. Ivermectin use for COVID-19 is worldwide and isn't aconsequence of "rejecting American Institutions" but was a desperate attempt by caregivers to keep their patients alive. They think they are seeing a pattern - that it works. But humans are easily fooled and see patterns everywhere, so we need better data. In the meantime, those doctors will continue to use ivermectin, and an upcoming Oxford study will get us some better data.
Might I also add that the evidence in support of Remdesivir is much much weaker than the evidence in support of Ivermectin, that the WHO recommends against Remdesivir, and yet in America it's widely used and nobody is bitching about it. Hypocrisy.
No, I disagree. They're functioning like doctors. There is not, nor should be, a political side to science. Facts are facts, and numbers are numbers. And false cures give false hope to the afflicted -- it's no different than snake oil.
In fact their argument is that it's too early to know so going in front of congress and the media is irresponsible.
Hydroxychloroquine, too, showed promise in the early studies. When it became clear it wasn't efficacious, the media and politicians had already grabbed hold informing millions of americans that it was a cure when it in fact was not.
The EUA for remedesivir and EUA revocation of hydroxychloroquine are here. They seem to be self explanatory about why the FDA took the action they did.
> Hydroxychloroquine, too, showed promise in the early studies. When it became clear it wasn't efficacious, the media and politicians had already grabbed hold informing millions of americans that it was a cure when it in fact was not.
I think you are mischaracterizing what the research has actually shown.
Similar to HIV/AIDS, the most current clinical research on the field shows to treat it with a cocktail of drugs
E.g.
Antivirals
Immunomodulators
anti-senescent cells
Anticoagulants
ACE2 inhibitors
And a long list of other ones that singularly have some efficacy, but as a large cocktail together dramatically improve patient outcomes.
And don't think that those studies that you got sent by the article supporting a claim are the only studies concerning that claim. Nobody will link you the study that discredits them, but it will often exist.
If you hire medical personnel to determine if havana syndrome is real, and if they say its not real then their position goes away, of course they will say it is real and serious.
I'm pretty sure the patent office has been doing less and less actual work, approving more and more patents, and figuring that the courts can sort it out.
NOT HAPPY WITH YOUTUBE SPLITTING UP SOCIETY: I'm not happy that YouTube (having a strong network-effect monopoly on online video content) has decided to close the Overton window so much. People interested in the information will get it elsewhere. These kinds of policies have caused people who follow edgy content to find that content elsewhere, and those "elsewheres" can be very nasty and radicalizing places (such as BitChute). I wish YouTube kept people from getting radicalized, but they seem to push people away and into those radical corners...
SCIENTISTS ARE NOT BEST ADJUDICATORS, BETTER HYPOTHESIZERS: Bret and Heather are scientists and as such are not necessarily of the best mental positioning to adjudicate facts. How so? Scientists should form hypotheses and argue for them. Scientists must as a group take on and argue for multiple hypotheses, vigorously. The data will decide who wins. It is quite appropriate that Bret and Heather have taken up hypotheses in regards to Ivermectin and in regard to possible damage from the vaccines. That doesn't make these views "the final word" or even "stated as factual". I think Bret and Heather would agree and I think they try to make clear that their opinions are hypotheses.
As an example, Bret had a guest on who argued that the number of deaths associated with vaccinations was off the charts. Bret didn't agree but didn't counter-argue. The information was highly misleading. Last episode (on Odysee) they brought up a paper studying Israel where via vaccinations for every 3 people saved, 2 are lost. They weren't at all critical of the author's credentials, nor did they even seem to have read the paper yet, which was quite flawed. Mallen Baker's latest video goes into that a little bit. Mallen Baker is IMHO a very good adjudicator of facts.
I have a lot of respect for Bret and Heather and I think what they are doing is important. But it is also easy to be confused by them and to "follow" their beliefs as if they were clearly correct, when they are actually quite speculative beliefs.
All that being said, everyone communicates on social media now and scientists need to communicate just like the rest of us. If YouTube doesn't want to be the conduit for open communications, some other platform will be.
If you live in the country you can fix that. Raising chooks is easy.
I raise my own sheep for food, heavily under-stocked so they can pick and choose what they want to eat (makes the meat taste much better than when they are forced to eat bitter stuff they don't want). I don't eat lamb, I let them mature to 2-3 years old first to develop a stronger taste which I prefer, but not so old that they get tough. Beef tastes bland to me now (unless it is charred and/or served with horseradish).
Soil tests show my soil is high in magnesium, low in phosphorus/sulfur, and normal for calcium/potassium, pH is low and I probably need to apply ag lime (nothing has been applied for at least 9 years).
This is true for houses built more than 20 years ago. But houses built in the last 18 years or so almost all have insluation, baths, better joinery, and many with double glazing. We are also starting to see more ducted heat pumps, polished concrete floors, and architectural features like vaulted ceilings, but still playing catch-up with America. While the quality has improved, so has the price.
What always mystifies me is why someone would buy one of these crappy >20 year old homes at $700,000 or more just because of it's location. I'd much rather live on a small farm with a brand new house at the same price.
Risk of serious harm from vaccines from a country where I trust the people a lot more than Americans is 1:3571 (based on 446,380 doses). Where are you getting the 1:200,000 from?
Let me add that these reports don't show cause, just correlation. Attempting to determine cause is very speculative and tenuous, and so all adverse events should be reported. So long as everyone understands the vaccines don't actually cause this many adverse events. To be fair, the same goes for COVID-19: deaths associated with COVID-19 are not necessarily caused by COVID-19.
That point being addressed, I would expect the elderly to have a lot more background adverse events, such as death. If we live 28835 days on average, 15 people in this vaccinated group are expected to die every day from non-vaccine causes, and heavily weighted towards the elderly. But I'm not even seeing death as a side-effect, and the number of adverse events among the elderly (who got the vaccine first and have had the lions share of vaccine administration) is actually less than among younger groups. This perplexes me and if anyone thinks they know the answer to this riddle, please share.
[Oh wait... there aren't as many elderly people. hits head]
Matt Taibbi supposes (in that paragraph) that their motivation in censoring scientific discussion of Ivermectin's effectiveness was to be "opposite to Donald Trump's comments" and thus to conform to one's own ideological tribe ... because if you don't conform, you risk being cancelled, don't you? And he bemoans that politics has corrupted real science and driven actual scientific debate underground.
Refer also to the Solomon Asch conformity experiment which occurred during a previous episode of cancel culture called "McCarthyism".
There are other theories. Some people have supposed that the motivations have to do with the money that big pharma would lose if they couldn't sell their vaccines because a safe and effective alternative was already available and proven, and therefore the conditions of the emergency use authorizations for the vaccines would become void. But nobody has any smoking gun evidence here that I'm aware of, it's just a plausible motivation.
Some people might believe so strongly that vaccines are the only possible savior of humanity that anything which detracts from the success of the vaccine campaign will be devastating, and so they do what they can to shut it down. Bret argues this is illogical if Ivermectin works because all forms of immunity work together to build herd immunity. But logic is unfortunately lost on far too many people.
More far fetched ideas include influence campaigns from foreign powers who aim to see America defeated. If they can influence the right people in the right way at the right time, they might be able to prolong the pandemic in America.
I'm sure there are even more hypotheses as to why such censorship is being attempted.
> io_uring is not an event system at all. io_uring is actually a generic asynchronous syscall facility.
I would call it a message passing system, not an asynchronous syscall facility. A syscall, even one that doesn't block indefinitely, transfers control to the kernel. io_uring, once setup, doesn't. Now that we have multiple cores, there is no reason to context switch if the kernel can handle your request on some other core on which it is perhaps already running.
It becomes a question of how expensive the message passing is between cores versus the context switch overhead - especially in a world where switching privilege levels has been made expensive by multiple categories of attack against processor speculation.
Is there a middle ground where io_uring doesn't require the mitigations but other syscalls do?
I've been intending to try process-to-process message passing using a lock-free data structure very much like io_uring where the processes share pages (one page read-write, the other page readonly, and inverse for the other process) on hardware with L2 tightly-integrated memory (SiFive FU740). The result being zero-copy message passing at L2 cache speeds. [for an embedded realtime custom OS, not for linux]
[I was going to post this independently, but as I've found your comment down the page I'll post this in reply to your comment.]
NPR is usually a more balanced news source, but that last paragraph takes a definite one-sided stance in the phrase "a historically accurate picture" in reference to critical race theory. Critical race theory is not about historic accuracy (non-normative fact), it's a very normative activist perspective.
That being said, I'm strongly against any form of the law restricting what ideas can be taught, even wildly wrong and dangerous ones.
If you want to weigh in on the ongoing medical debate (this is not settled science), please at least read 10 or so relevant studies first. Far too much chatter by people who don't have not put in the requisite work.