<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 10:46 PM Steve Izma <<a href="mailto:sizma@golden.net">sizma@golden.net</a>> wrote:</div><div class="gmail_quote"> <br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
> It is just like Hydroxychloroquine: what works against a<br>
> certain pathogen or disease at a given dose, at does not work<br>
> for other pathogens or conditions at a different dose. Viruses<br>
> and intestinal worms have very different biologies and modes of<br>
> infections (one is inside the cells, the other is outside, for<br>
> one).<br>
<br>
This sounds reductionist and dogmatic to me, approaching the idea<br>
that pathologies have a single cause and are therefore cured by a<br>
pharmaceutical product that attacks that single cause. </blockquote><div><br></div><div>In medicine, this is on a condition by condition, and patient by patient basis. <br></div><div>Some conditions can be cured (or managed and brought under control) by a single <br></div><div>drug (e.g. antibiotic against a certain bacteria, or an anti-inflammatory for arthritis).</div><div>Other conditions are more complex, or patients may suffer co-morbidities that <br></div><div>require co-treatments. <br></div><div><br></div><div>For example, in some viral infections antibiotics are given if the patient risks <br></div><div>a secondary infection by bacteria. <br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Covid-19
isn't a single thing but a collection of symptoms usually<br>
associated with (often different) respiratory diseases that were<br>
suddenly grouped together due to the identification of a certain<br>
virus (among the nearly one quadrillion viruses normally resident<br>
in a human body). </blockquote><div><br></div><div>That is propaganda by the conspiracy theorists, and is patently false. <br></div><div>It borders on "this disease was made up to scare/control people".</div><div><br></div><div>COVID-19 is definitely a disease caused by a single virus (that now has several variants). <br></div><div>Not all patients exhibit all the symptoms, and later variants have different symptoms <br></div><div>too. <br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">It's highly unlikely that a single intervention<br>
can make a difference here. None of the uses of<br>
hydroxychloroquine or invermectin that I've heard about use only<br>
one of those drugs, They are always combined with other kinds of<br>
medical attention, under the credible suspicion that those who<br>
are the sickest have become vulnerable in many ways. Therefore<br>
testing for the effectiveness of a single drug in these<br>
circumstances is bound to fail, possibly intentionally so.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Please lookup how double blind randomized testing is done. That has been the best practice</div><div>for knowing how a treatment or vaccine is effective. It eliminates biases by both the medical</div><div>staff, and by the patient, and rules out things like intuition. <br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
> One example with dire consequences is thalidomide. It was used<br>
> as a painkiller (like Tylenol), then its use was expanded for<br>
> morning sickness for pregnant women. The result was babies were<br>
> born with incomplete hands or feet. Canada, the UK and Europe<br>
> allowed that use with disastrous results. In the USA, one Dr.<br>
> Frances Oldham Kelsey who worked for the FDA refused to approve<br>
> the drug, and stuck to her position that the company must<br>
> submit safety data, despite pressure from superiors.<br>
<br>
Gee, that sounds a lot like the current debates about the<br>
approval of vaccines: they are currently only approved under<br>
an emergency-use authorization because the usual safety studies<br>
have not been completed. <br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That is an oft-repeated claim by those who are against the vaccines, <br></div><div>but it is a false claim. <br></div><div><br></div><div>At least two vaccines have been approved for general use by the FDA <br></div><div>and other regulators of medicines. <br></div><div><br></div><div>FDA approved Pfizer's vaccine since Aug 2021<br></div><div><a href="https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine">https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine</a></div><div> </div><div>Moderna was also approved.</div><div><br></div><div>Here is an article from a medical research university on the approval</div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/full-fda-approval-of-a-covid-19-vaccine-what-you-should-know">https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/full-fda-approval-of-a-covid-19-vaccine-what-you-should-know</a></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Norman Doidge described the problems of the "master narrative" of<br>
the pharmalogical response to Covid-19 in a Globe and Mail<br>
article in January 2022<br>
<<a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-vaccines-are-a-tool-not-a-silver-bullet-if-wed-allowed-more-scientific/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-vaccines-are-a-tool-not-a-silver-bullet-if-wed-allowed-more-scientific/</a>><br>
(if you can't get access to this article, I have PDF of it). This<br>
is what he says about the difficulty of merely quoting a<br>
selection of studies, as you do in the rest of your message:<br>
<br>
So why hasn’t treatment focused more on repurposed drugs?<br>
<br>
First, because the master narrative, once it took hold,<br>
directed our attention away from this possibility.<br>
Second, in North America, the first repurposed drug that<br>
came to public attention was hydroxychloroquine. When it<br>
was endorsed by then-president Donald Trump it became<br>
highly politicized. People’s opinions about it often had<br>
more to do with their political affiliation than whether<br>
they had read any of the (now) 303 studies. Third,<br>
agencies that regulate drugs, such as the U.S. Food and<br>
Drug Administration and Health Canada, mandate that any<br>
drug they evaluate have a sponsor, usually a drug company<br>
agreeing to assume liabilities for the drug. It’s an<br>
extremely expensive process. If an old, cheap generic<br>
drug shows promise for repurposing, it still needs a<br>
sponsor to get approved for that. But drug companies have<br>
no financial incentive to do so. So usually there are no<br>
sponsors, and the drugs languish.<br>
<br>
Of all the reasons that we didn’t focus on repurposed<br>
drugs, I would argue, the master narrative was the most<br>
important, because of the way it organized so many<br>
people’s thoughts, attention, and emotions.The evidence I posted </blockquote><div><br></div><div>In an earlier message, I pointed to 550 research papers on PubMed on</div><div>the topic of Ivermectin and COVID. If you search for HCQ, or anything <br></div><div>else, I am sure other papers will come up. <br></div><div><br></div><div>That means researchers are actively investigating those drugs, but nothing <br></div><div>effective came up so far. Maybe something will come up next year, or in ten</div><div>years. Until then, we can't administer ANY OF THESE DRUGS hoping they work</div><div>and claiming a conspiracy of suppression. <br></div><div><br></div><div>Just because this guy's opinion is against it, or he is not aware, is not</div><div>evidence to the contrary. <br></div><div><br></div><div>So far, there is no evidence that any of the available medicines targets</div><div>COVID (apart from corticosteroids).<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
This mailing list frequently contains good arguments as to why we<br>
should be skeptical of the large corporations that dominate our<br>
activities in the tech world. An effective and frequently used<br>
rule of thumb in these discussions has been "follow the money".<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is a common retort that I get from friends who claim conspiracies</div><div>without evidence. My reply is "what is possible, what is probably, and <br></div><div>what is reality are different things". Just because one is paranoid does</div><div>not mean their neighbour is out to get them or their spouse is cheating</div><div>on them. <br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
You have failed to do this in your discussion of the studies you<br>
quote. Who benefits from them?<br>
<br>
How bias-free were your pharmaceutical studies? How much of the<br>
information and textbooks were associated with pharmaceutical<br>
companies?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Interestingly, companies were not mentioned at all in four years of <br></div><div>pharmacy (and one year prep in science) other than when discussing</div><div>the specific medicines that we are studying. Even in the course for</div><div>industrial pharmacy (how tablets, capsules, injections are made), <br></div><div>there was no mention of specific companies.</div><div><br></div><div>So if anything, companies were ignored or mentioned in passing. <br></div><div>But that was Egypt and several decades ago. I imagine things could</div><div>be different in the USA for example. <br></div><div><br></div><div>Here is one exception that I remember vividly from the late 1970s or</div><div>early 1980s. The company was Schering in Switzerland (or Germany). <br></div><div>At that time they had a monopoly on so called soft gel capsules. Anyone <br></div><div>who wanted to make their medicine in that format had to give them their <br></div><div>own drug to be packed in those capsules. This is not odd now because</div><div>there are companies that operate production lines for other companies</div><div>specially in the sterile products (vaccines, injections). <br></div><div><br></div><div>One guy who was ahead of me a couple of years started a company after</div><div>graduation with investors and such specifically to compete with Schering. <br></div><div>This company is still in operation in Egypt, but the technology is now <br></div><div>wide spread around the world and no longer a novelty, due to advances</div><div>in many areas of engineering, manufacturing, ...etc. <br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Science never has an end point. It is, like all other forms of<br>
knowledge, a process of discovery and debate. </blockquote><div><br></div><div><div>Since has no end point and is always evolving. But certain things are <br></div><div>established and will be added to, rather than replaced. For example,</div><div>Earth is spherical and rotates around itself. Matter is made of proton</div><div>and neutron which are made of quarks. The Standard Model has <br></div><div>photos, electrons ...etc. In 100 years these will still be there, but</div><div>additional particles and more precise properties are know. </div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Our experience with<br>
computer tech appears to demonstrate that there's no level<br>
playing field here and the big players monopolize the knowledge<br>
and development process. </blockquote><div><br></div><div><div>You are comparing different domains: science and technology <br></div><div>cross pollinate but they are not the same, and have different approaches</div><div>and techniques. <br></div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">That's why I find it very troubling that<br>
your opening position implies that there is no longer a debate on<br>
these issues. That echoes the desire of the powers-that-be.<br></blockquote><div><br></div>I have made it clear that the current evidence is against the efficacy <br></div><div class="gmail_quote">of Ivermectin against COVID-19. That should be the current position <br></div><div class="gmail_quote">of anyone who follows evidence and uses the science methodology. <br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">If new evidence emerges to the contrary (highly unlikely given the studies <br></div><div class="gmail_quote">I quoted), then a change in position is warranted. Einstein was proven </div><div class="gmail_quote">wrong about Quantum physics. This year's physics Nobel was exactly <br></div><div class="gmail_quote">about that. The winners did not keep lamenting about dogma, and idol</div><div class="gmail_quote">worship in science. One guy (John Stewart Bell) did the calculations, found <br></div><div class="gmail_quote">a way to disprove the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paper. Others designed <br></div><div class="gmail_quote">experiments and ran them and proved Einstein wrong.<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">They did this while being part of academia, doing the hard work that needs</div><div class="gmail_quote">to be done. They are not outsiders unfamiliar with the field's intricacies, claiming <br></div><div class="gmail_quote">coverups, cabals, conspiracies, ...etc.</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">See the difference?<br></div></div>