Coronavirus hype biggest political hoax in history

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

On 5/4/2020 at 7:03 PM, Hotone said:

*A lesson, a reminder - for those it may concern.*

Tough decision to take for any govt. 

In 1720, a ship was quarantined at the port in Marseille coz a strange infection was killing people on the ship.

Deputy Mayor of Marseille lifted the quarantine to “help the economy”.

100,000 people died.
More than half of Marseille died. *This was the Great Plague of Marseille.*

The govt of Marseille felt they could not afford to lose all the valuable goods on the ship coz it will destroy the economy.

As they lifted the quarantine & moved the goods into the city of Marseille, they moved in the infection.

More than half of Marseille citizens died.

Marseille is a major port city in the south of France.

*By the end of the Great Plague of Marseille, the city of Marseille had 50,000 dead people out of a total 90,000 population back then.*

The ship left Sidon in Lebanon, picked up people at Tripoli & Cyprus which already had infection outbreak.

A Turkish man on the ship got infected first &  died, then several sailors died. The ship’s surgeon also died.

As the ship got to Marseille, Doctors quarantined it.

Now coz Marseille had a very huge trading arrangement with “Levant” (a term for countries like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Cyprus, Turkey, Israel, Jordan, and Palestine); the govt was convinced by businessmen that the quarantine on the ship has to be removed & the goods released.

Some powerful businessmen led by the deputy mayor of Marseille (who was also the owner of the ship) convinced his friends in govt to release the quarantine. Some merchants needed the cotton & silk cargo on the ship to do business for the upcoming festival in Beaucaire.

It was only a matter of days later, the infection broke out in the whole of Marseille. People started dropping dead. They died so much there was no graves to bury them.

Dead bodies littered the streets of Marseille. Till date, the people of Marseille remember this story.

*Apparently what happened was:*
The govt tried to be clever. They told themselves “we will only move the silk & cotton on the ship into the city but not the infected people on the ship”. But in moving the goods, they unknowingly moved infected rats which then infected people.

As people got infected, they infected one another. At a point, the govt of France built a wall to stop Marseille from infecting the rest of the country. 

But it was too late. 10,000 people from Marseille already ran into neighbouring cities. 50,000 people died outside of Marseille.

*The Great Plague of Marseille lasted about 3 years.* Those were horrible years in Marseille & in France.

Hospitals got overwhelmed. Residents fleeing their homes. Dead bodies lying & decaying on the streets.

As the infection then spread, nobody cared anymore about “economy”.

I hope you learnt something.

*The Great Plague of Marseille is a huge warning to govt never to prioritise the “economy” ahead of human lives & public health. It can be a very costly mistake.*

*We can always rebuild the economy, but we can never revive the dead.*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plague_of_Marseille

Seems like a cautionary tale. But in our case they are ignoring the sick people on the ship, and quarantining the healthy people in Marseilles. 

I hope you learned something

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 5/4/2020 at 3:55 AM, 0R0 said:

Hydroxychloroquine is not enough. It slowly reduces viral counts. ONLY when coupled with azythromycin (or doxycylin) and better yet with zinc supplements, is the combination effective in reducing viral counts rapidly - i.e. 5 days for most patients, 10 days for later stage patients.. It is obviously not going to help anyone that is within days or hours of death. But it is better than Remdesivir since HCQ/Z cuts recovery time by 2 weeks and Remdesivir only cuts one week. HCQ/Z is just not better for Dr. Fauci who is a "friend" of Gilead and who's department will obtain a big donation from them in due course. 

The entire global pharma industry is on the make trying to make a bundle off this boondoggle with hundreds of drugs in trial and nearly 100 vaccines in development and many already testing. The billions of dollars already invested are going to look silly against an existing drug that costs <<$50 for the entire course of treatment. The hospitals are also on board for an injection only drug that gives them lots of opportunities to charge for the injection service and mark up the drug as only hospitals dare to do. So the entire medical establishment is hating the idea of HCQ/Z and will do its best to sabotage it. The same goes for famotidine which is in trials and has anecdotal evidence of rapid recoveries. It just happens to react with a key viral enzyme so might stop replication on the spot. 

I have read too many stories of HCQ saving very sick people who were at death's door to say it is not a "miracle drug" for COVID 19. Of course zinc, antibiotics, and several other beneficial items could be used also. I just ordered a bottle of famotidine to keep on hand as well as all my other supplements. 

My COVID 19 topic with several new stories added https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MXY8T0j7k0oUBsHW4BfjJM__DRIyzqrDf_FSlV4hHpw/edit#

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 hour ago, TooSteep said:

That is, perhaps, the most misguided statement I have ever read here.

 

23 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

That's saying something!

 

Perhaps we need a contest.  There have been some real knee slappers on this forum.  The mind boggles at the possibilities.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 hour ago, El Nikko said:

I'm all over it, smoking like a trooper here

We went with nicotine lozenges in case we get it. 

[surrept33 + 609]

On 5/5/2020 at 5:44 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

Heh heh, sure, no problem.  All I'm doing is compiling and condensing information from others, and adding my own comments.  Please make sure you give links to the article and 2005 paper; links are already provided in the comment.

I think the research community was fully aware of the 2005 in vitro paper. The problem is that there was a 2006 in vivo paper (in mice) that didn't find much efficacy. This is true not only just with chloroquine and analogues, but other things that also had in vitro activity.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/095632020601700505

Quote

Nelfinavir, β-D-N4-hydroxycytidine, calpain inhibitor VI, 3-deazaneplanocin A and Alferon®(humanleukocyte IFN-α-n3) did not significantly reduce lung virus titres in mice. Anti-inflammatory agents, chloroquine, amodiaquin and pentoxifylline, were also inactive in vivo, suggesting that although they may be useful in ameliorating the hyperinflammatory response induced by the virus infection, they will not significantly reduce the replication of the virus, the inducer of inflammatory response.

So in other words, not useful for decreasing viral load (maybe in combination w/ other substances), but maybe useful for the cytokine storm.

As an antiviral, Chloroquine showed in vitro activity for a lot of viruses (everything from marburg, HIV, ebola), but failed in vivo animal studies. Table 3 goes into it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5733787/

This happens all the time with in vitro studies. Usually has something to do with the pharmacodynamics or pharmacokinematics of the drug in question.

Edited May 6, 2020 by surrept33

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

1 hour ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

So will this get some traction...she is throwing bombs of epic proportions. Somewhere someplace there is a truth. So far ive found little that stand up to any critical thinking...

 

 

What the hell?!!  If this was Enron, Fauci would be hauled off in front of the cameras.  Large scale investigations would be conducted and he would be put away for the rest of his life.  Those same investigations, obviously, would quickly lead to an entire chain of individuals going to jail.  If people like Bill Gates are proven to be partners in this crime against humanity, because that IS what this is, he should be imprisoned and his wealth should be distributed to the millions of victims worldwide.  The CDC, WHO, the whole lot of these corrupt agencies need to be padlocked and taped off until we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are cleaned out and re-staffed with people that can be trusted.  That takes serious vetting by serious people.  Why is Fauci still standing beside the President?  How can this message be delivered to the inside of the President's bubble?  All human beings, bar none, appear to be affected by these genocidal maniacs.  If there was ever a time for people to come together and demand justice, this is it.  If the world questioned Americans protesting on TV, they should have no question after learning the truth and the true scope of these crimes.  Instead of a few hundred demonstrators, expect a few million.  Americans and people of the entire world need to stand up because it seems clear at this point that all people of the world have been and are the target of these killers.  Take them down.  Take them down now.

Edited May 6, 2020 by Dan Warnick

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 hours ago, TooSteep said:

That is, perhaps, the most misguided statement I have ever read here. The 'solution' of reopening is to re-establish personal freedom. At that point, allow people to freely make individual decisions based on their own personal well being. I am mystified at how people think that any of this has anything to do with an election.

I agree with you 100% that a large percentage of people will be behaviorally scarred by this for life. Real economic activity is going to be meaningfully reduced at the margin. The future looks bleak. But people must be free to choose their own course. Freedom is a natural right. If government officials strongly suggested social distancing measures, without officially shutting down anything, and 'enforcing' nothing, most of the outrage would dissipate.

 

Let people work it out on their own. Some will not wear masks or take all the other safeguards. Some will warn them and disapprove. The opposite will be true of some. The elderly and infirm would be foolish to do so, but that is true for many dangerous activities. Some have to pick a time when they should reduce driving in heavy traffic or not drive at all. 

Those of like minds will associate with one another. Businesses will set their own rules but some won't follow them. Laws will be tested but things will find an equilibrium based on social norms. 

[UNC12345 + 171]

3 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

90% of MSM in the U.S. is owned by 6 companies, and they are simply different variations of similar agendas.  Which is why I prefer more independent sites for my news.

 

I've seen the charts before, I definitely get it.  You don't like that they are influenced, they are a concentrated ownership group, etc. and they have agendas, and you don't agree with their left-leanings.  But isn't this small site just pushing a conservative agenda?  But you "trust it" because they tend to agree with your viewpoints?  I have no doubt that CNN has an agenda and in fact, it's very hard to watch at times.  It's tiring just always hearing them be in the "Donald Trump is bad" mode (even though he seems like a buffoon many times without any help whatsoever).  But I just fail to see how redstate.com is any different - they are simply pushing a different agenda, far to the right.  

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Just now, UNC12345 said:

I've seen the charts before, I definitely get it.  You don't like that they are influenced, they are a concentrated ownership group, etc. and they have agendas, and you don't agree with their left-leanings.  But isn't this small site just pushing a conservative agenda?  But you "trust it" because they tend to agree with your viewpoints?  I have no doubt that CNN has an agenda and in fact, it's very hard to watch at times.  It's tiring just always hearing them be in the "Donald Trump is bad" mode (even though he seems like a buffoon many times without any help whatsoever).  But I just fail to see how redstate.com is any different - they are simply pushing a different agenda, far to the right.  

You really have no idea just how far away from mainstream my viewpoints tend to be.  My comments on this forum tend to be pretty moderate and restrained, compared to how I actually view the world.

Far left and far right generally both suck.

Democrat and Republican politicians generally both suck.

Try re-watching the movie The Matrix.

And there is a reason I keep repeating my comment to unplug your TV - most TV programs seem to turn most people into mental zombies.

See my earlier, more detailed comment here:  

https://community.oilprice.com/topic/12930-the-president-and-the-plague/#comment-102932

And grab some popcorn and watch the movie in the link.  That might answer your questions a bit more.

 

[surrept33 + 609]

3 minutes ago, UNC12345 said:

I've seen the charts before, I definitely get it.  You don't like that they are influenced, they are a concentrated ownership group, etc. and they have agendas, and you don't agree with their left-leanings.  But isn't this small site just pushing a conservative agenda?  But you "trust it" because they tend to agree with your viewpoints?  I have no doubt that CNN has an agenda and in fact, it's very hard to watch at times.  It's tiring just always hearing them be in the "Donald Trump is bad" mode (even though he seems like a buffoon many times without any help whatsoever).  But I just fail to see how redstate.com is any different - they are simply pushing a different agenda, far to the right.  

RedState has a interesting (very anti-trump) history in the 2016 elections: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/is-the-most-powerful-conservative-in-america-losing-his-edge/383503/

They got sold to Salem Media after that, which has grown a lot in recent years due to industry agglomeration (along with Sinclair, etc): https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/salem-radio-is-quietly-becoming-a-conservative-media-giant-1204182

After that they did a purge of anyone critical to trump: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/redstate-and-the-dwindling-space-for-anti-trump-conservatives/559223/

I haven't visited the site much recently, but I thought it was interesting in 2016.

[Jim Profit + 46]

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Let people work it out on their own. Some will not wear masks or take all the other safeguards. Some will warn them and disapprove. The opposite will be true of some.

When you wear a mask you protect yourself and probably more the others .. The choice you make have consequences for the others.

For me that would be no much difference that allowing people to drive at the speed they want (no limit), or drink/drug and drive..

Sometime some coercition is welcome for the greater good. Making masks mandatory wouldn't be depriving people of their freedom.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

33 minutes ago, Jim Profit said:

Sometime some coercition is welcome for the greater good. Making masks mandatory wouldn't be depriving people of their freedom.

Actually yes, making masks mandatory would be depriving people of their freedom.

You are free to wear a mask if you so choose.

I am free to choose not to wear a mask.

You are way overstepping your bounds here in trying to force your views down my throat.  No. Mask. Period.

This Controla-virus is truly spinning out of control.

The death rates do not warrant the shutdown of countries and dictatorial control over populations and economic slaughter.

[Jim Profit + 46]

Are speed limits depriving people of their freedom ?
You could make the same exact argument..

What does freedom cover ? What are the criterias ?

Weed smoking ?

Immigration ?

Abortion ?

Not serving customers (because gays or whatever) ?

Kneeling during the anthem ?

 

[0R0 + 6,251]

59 minutes ago, surrept33 said:

I think the research community was fully aware of the 2005 in vitro paper. The problem is that there was a 2006 in vivo paper (in mice) that didn't find much efficacy. This is true not only just with chloroquine and analogues, but other things that also had in vitro activity.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/095632020601700505

So in other words, not useful for decreasing viral load (maybe in combination w/ other substances), but maybe useful for the cytokine storm.

As an antiviral, Chloroquine showed in vitro activity for a lot of viruses (everything from marburg, HIV, ebola), but failed in vivo animal studies. Table 3 goes into it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5733787/

This happens all the time with in vitro studies. Usually has something to do with the pharmacodynamics or pharmacokinematics of the drug in question.

Yes, the critical loading level where the drug is effective requires time to achieve because of side effects of larger doses limits the pace of its accumulation. But if you are monitored for Qt changes, then you can take the larger doses and get to the threshold dose over fewer days. 

The "we don't want this to work" medical establishment is just fearing that it has spent over $1 Bilion a month for a third month now, and much more coming to be beat by a $50 treatment regimen. That is all there is to it. Note the silence about famotidine, another cheap treatment in trials now. 

HCQ as a treatment for the CV19 virus is only shown to be effective in combinations with other drugs, particularly azithromycin and with zinc supplements. As an anti- inflammatory which helps with the cytokine storm it is helpful too, but there are probably better candidates if you are using something else against the virus.

 

[0R0 + 6,251]

23 minutes ago, Jim Profit said:

Are speed limits depriving people of their freedom ?
You could make the same exact argument..

What does freedom cover ? What are the criterias ?

Weed smoking ?

Immigration ?

Abortion ?

Not serving customers (because gays or whatever) ?

Kneeling during the anthem ?

 

All of the above (or restrictions against them) are attacks on freedom. All must be turned into advice or done away with entirely.  Speed limits are an extension of reckless driving laws that preceded it. 

Immigration is an issue that has to be addressed by law because (1) any country, even China, can be overwhelmed by immigration waves. (2) because of anti-discrimination law the society is not able to express rejection of immigrants to stop excess immigration by being inhospitable. 

[0R0 + 6,251]

1 hour ago, Jim Profit said:

When you wear a mask you protect yourself and probably more the others .. The choice you make have consequences for the others.

For me that would be no much difference that allowing people to drive at the speed they want (no limit), or drink/drug and drive..

Sometime some coercition is welcome for the greater good. Making masks mandatory wouldn't be depriving people of their freedom.

You can wear an N95 mask which protects only you and keeps everyone in danger of contracting the virus from you. You can wear a cloth or surgical mask that reduces substantially your danger to others, while keeping you in minor danger as it is not a complete block of the virus, it just assures you that your initial load upon infection would be smaller than your would have had without it. Probability of infection is lower 

Use of hand sanitizer frequently or gloves (replaced frequently) also protects you. 

There is absolutely no authority to impose masks. And coercion is not acceptable. and IS depriving people of their freedom. Particularly their choice of the degree of risk they take with their lives and health. 

 

Edited May 6, 2020 by 0R0

[Jim Profit + 46]

The concept of freedom varies..

Here the majority view is that refusing to serve a someone for arbitrary reason is discrimination. And mustn't be tolerated.
There is no freedom of prejudice.

[0R0 + 6,251]

1 hour ago, Jim Profit said:

Sometime some coercition is welcome for the greater good. Making masks mandatory wouldn't be depriving people of their freedom.

Greater good can only be achieved by individual decisions and willing cooperation. Mandatory is incompatible with the public's greater good. 

[Jim Profit + 46]

8 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

There is absolutely no authority to impose masks. And coercion is not acceptable. and IS depriving people of their freedom. Particularly their choice of the degree of risk they take with their lives and health. 

 

Bad government he won't let me endanger me and other people at my sole discretion..
This kind of view should make cringe people who were really deprived from their freedom or had to fight for their freedom..
I'm sure there is a term for that..

Edited May 6, 2020 by Jim Profit

[0R0 + 6,251]

1 minute ago, Jim Profit said:

The concept of freedom varies..

Here the majority view is that refusing to serve a someone for arbitrary reason is discrimination. And mustn't be tolerated.
There is no freedom of prejudice.

Disagree. We all have the right not to associate with anyone else we don't want to. Including in business.

Anti discrimination laws may be intending for good outcomes, but they are a basic infringement on the freedom of association. Weighing the benefits against each other, discrimination is the much smaller benefit. 

[Jim Profit + 46]

3 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

Greater good can only be achieved by individual decisions and willing cooperation. Mandatory is incompatible with the public's greater good. 

Yeah like mandatory speed limits and speed tickets are incompatible with the puiblic's greater good.

[0R0 + 6,251]

Just now, Jim Profit said:

Bad government he won't let me endanger and endanger other people at my sole discretion..
This kind of view should make cringe people who were really deprived from their freedom or had to fight for their freedom..
I'm sure there is a term for that..

It is the fundamental point of freedom. We all endanger each other in most things we do outside our abodes. 

[UNC12345 + 171]

17 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

All of the above (or restrictions against them) are attacks on freedom. All must be turned into advice or done away with entirely.  Speed limits are an extension of reckless driving laws that preceded it. 

What about drunk-driving laws?  Are they an attack on freedoms?

[Jim Profit + 46]

Just now, 0R0 said:

It is the fundamental point of freedom. We all endanger each other in most things we do outside our abodes. 

Yes I understand .. But in this case people can do whatever they want, they just have to wear a mask. Like they can drive wherever they want despite speed limits. A rational measure that is supported by science, to save the most lives (and maybe even some zygotes, to the joy of pro-life people). Lives of people > my "freedom" to not wear a mask.

Would I be coerced into wearing a pink polo or having the same aircut as my president, it would be for an arbitrary reason, I would definitely consider that as an attack on my freedom. Because that's arbitraty, that is asking submission to power.

Freedom to not wear a mask and spread my germs, freedom to get a manucure during a pandemic..Self-entitled freedom.

[0R0 + 6,251]

55 minutes ago, UNC12345 said:

What about drunk-driving laws?  Are they an attack on freedoms?

Of course they are, you have laws against people causing damage or reckless behavior while driving drunk or otherwise incapacitated by choice. There is no reason to have a separate law criminalizing the causal activity itself. 

The authority of law is uniquely and solely to prevent the impingement of others on ones freedoms. All else is pretense for power.