lowenz on 30/3/2020 at 06:23
"PCR-positive samples"
So you got no virus in your nose and your throat. There's no replication *THERE*
No specific information about lungs and so death (you can't of course die if the virus is active ONLY in your nose and your throat)
"Remission" from Covid-19 is totally another thing (you must drain the lungs), not only the eradication of the SARS-cov-2 infection present @nose and throat level.
And don't forget the other tissues that SARS-cov-2 loves: the kidney tissues.
SubJeff on 30/3/2020 at 07:33
I'm not going to comment on specifics, because I just don't have time and the people involved will just argue, but this is a general warning to anyone passing by or interested at all:
The "science" in this thread is of very poor quality. It is nearing Fake News, except it is (mostly) not out of ill will.
Please do not pay attention/get alarmed by anything you read. Please wait for actual scientists to provide recommendations.
This isn't meant to denigrate anyone, and I know you guys are just interested. That's fine. But it's clear that multiple posters are well out of their depth on these issues. By all means talk about it. No one can stop you anyway. I just hope no one really takes notice/acts on any of this chat.
Renzatic on 30/3/2020 at 07:42
Quote Posted by lowenz
Oh well, this is the guy: Didier Raoult
So he's the source of all this, huh? From what I dug up, it seems his clinical trial wasn't exactly well structure, and took data from multiple clinics. His findings weren't vastly divorced from the usual course an infection takes in some people. So based on the quality and control of the trial, you could end up at three conclusions: it did nothing, it did a little bit, or it did a lot.
So it's inconclusive.
...and the first thing he does is publish that he's found a miracle cure, and runs off to Fox news to talk about it (which is where Trump saw it, and tweeted about the next day). Now he's trying to publish a book about it?
Yeah, he's probably trying to strike while the iron's hot here, and make some money off the pandemic panic.
Though his findings do have some merit, so it's good that other groups are looking into it.
Quote Posted by SubJeff
I just hope no one really takes notice/acts on any of this chat.
I won't at least. I have fairly easy access to hydroxychloroquine through my mom, who's taking it for her RA. I have no intentions of self-medicating, since I know it's a fairly dangerous drug, with a number of nasty side effects.
lowenz on 30/3/2020 at 07:56
Quote:
Please wait for actual scientists to provide recommendations.
And if the "actual scientists" (REAL virologists with REAL Ph.D and a life in medicine) have
already a book to sell about Covid-19?
Maybe "actual scientists" are not so science-devoted at all.
"Actual scientists" and
honest scientists (and good physicians in this particular case) are 2 different things.
lowenz on 30/3/2020 at 08:00
Quote Posted by Renzatic
So he's the source of all this, huh? From what I dug up, it seems his clinical trial wasn't exactly well structure, and took data from multiple clinics. His findings weren't vastly divorced from the usual course an infection takes in some people. So based on the quality and control of the trial, you could end up at three conclusions: it did nothing, it did a little bit, or it did a lot.
Didier Raoult has the classic climate-change opposer "scientist" profile.
And we are talking about the "actual scientist" (it's why I repeat that a life in science is NOT an assurance).
(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didier_Raoult#Climate_change)
Sulphur on 30/3/2020 at 09:10
Quote Posted by lowenz
And if the "actual scientists" (REAL virologists with REAL Ph.D and a life in medicine) have
already a book to sell about Covid-19?
Maybe "actual scientists" are not so science-devoted at all.
"Actual scientists" and
honest scientists (and good physicians in this particular case) are 2 different things.
There's this thing in science for theories called peer review, I'm sure you know. It's as good a check as any but one of the inherent problems with it is that it takes a while to review and get consensus and conclude; in the meantime, people will randomly go off and believe or disbelieve every scrap of initial information on the internet, which leads to histrionics and pseudotheories like everything you've posted in this thread, which basically are less than useless.
You're actively being less intelligent than the average person on Facebook, never mind your background in engineering. Your emotions are unhelpful. Your shouting grates on the nerves. Dial it down, manchild.
lowenz on 30/3/2020 at 09:25
Quote Posted by Sulphur
There's this thing in science for theories called peer review, I'm sure you know. It's as good a check as any but one of the inherent problems with it is that it takes a while to review and get consensus and conclude; in the meantime, people will randomly go off and believe or disbelieve every scrap of initial information on the internet,
which leads to histrionics and pseudotheories like everything you've posted in this thread, which basically are less than useless.
You're actively being
less intelligent than the average person on Facebook, never mind your background in engineering. Your emotions are unhelpful. Your shouting grates on the nerves.
Dial it down, manchild.
Are you talking about you? You're spitting, not me.
Calm down, you're the emotianal manchild.
Sulphur on 30/3/2020 at 09:27
Case in point. Good work.
