Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

indydave

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    4,442
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    123

indydave last won the day on May 19

indydave had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

485 Excellent

1 Follower

About indydave

  • Rank
    Veteran Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
    Male
  • How old are you?
    63
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
    Christian
  • What is your Worldview?
    Young Earth Creationist
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
    Indianapolis, IN

Recent Profile Visitors

1,488 profile views
  1. indydave

    A New Look at the Fossil Record

    Dad... your method of quoting and replying is confusing (compared to how all the rest of us post.) Please try to only quote the smallest amount possible and then don't put your comments INSIDE the part you quote. (Maybe someone else could guide you more.)
  2. From Dr. Risch's primary source article. https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa093/5847586 Five studies, including two controlled clinical trials, have demonstrated significant major outpatient treatment efficacy. Hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin has been used as standard-of-care in more than 300,000 older adults with multicomorbidities, with estimated proportion diagnosed with cardiac arrhythmias attributable to the medications 47/100,000 users, of which estimated mortality is <20%, 9/100,000 users, compared to the 10,000 Americans now dying each week. These medications need to be widely available and promoted immediately for physicians to prescribe....(indy- and Trump DID exactly that!) The FDA has recently issued guidance (15) to physicians and the general public advising that the combination HCQ+AZ should not generally be used except by critically ill hospital inpatients or in the context of registered clinical trials. The NIH panel for Covid-19 treatment guidelines say essentially the same (16), and a similar statement has been released by the major cardiology societies (17). Numerous reviews of HCQ efficacy and adverse events have been and continue to be published. To my knowledge, all of these reviews have omitted the two critical aspects of reasoning about these drugs: use of HCQ combined with AZ or with doxycycline, and use in the outpatient setting. For example, the Veterans' Administration Medical Centers study (18) examined treated hospitalized patients and was fatally flawed (19). (Indy-same goes for Lancet!) The same point about outpatient use of the combined medications has been raised by a panel of distinguished French physicians (20) in petitioning their national government to allow outpatient use of HCQ+AZ. It appears that the FDA, NIH and cardiology society positions have been based upon theoretical calculations about potential adverse events and from measured physiologic changes rather than from current real-world mortality experience with these medications and that their positions should be revised. In reviewing all available evidence, I will show that HCQ+AZ and HCQ+doxycycline are generally safe for short-term use in the early treatment of most symptomatic high-risk outpatients where not contraindicated, and that they are effective in preventing hospitalization for the overwhelming majority of such patients. If these combined medications become standard-of-care, they are likely to save an enormous number of lives that would otherwise be lost to this endemic disease.... evidence for utility or lack thereof or toxicity in hospitalized patients cannot be extrapolated to apply to outpatient use,... The third piece of evidence involves the cohort of 1450 patients treated by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko of Monsey, NY. Dr. Zelenko has released a two-page report (28) describing his clinical reasoning and procedures, dosing conditions and regimen, and patient results through April 28. Symptomatic patients presenting to Dr. Zelenko were treated with five days of HCQ+AZ+zinc sulfate if they were considered high-risk, as evidenced by one or more of: age 60 years or older; high-risk comorbidities; body-mass index>30; mild shortness of breath at presentation. Patients were considered to have Covid-19 based on clinical grounds and started treatment as soon as possible following symptom onset, rather than delaying for test results before starting treatment. Of the 1450 patients, 1045 were classified as low-risk and sent home to recuperate without active medications. No deaths or hospitalizations occurred among them. Of the remaining 405 treated with the combined regimen, 6 were ultimately hospitalized and 2 died. No cardiac arrhythmias were noted in these 405 patients.... The fourth relevant study was a controlled non-randomized trial of HCQ+AZ in 636 symptomatic high-risk outpatients in São Paulo, Brazil (29). All consecutive patients were informed about the utility and safety profile of the medications and offered the treatment, and those who declined (n=224) comprised the control group. Patients were monitored daily by telemedicine. The study outcome was need for hospitalization, defined as clinically worsening condition or significant shortness of breath (blood oxygen saturation <90%). Even though the severities of all of the recorded flu-like signs and symptoms and of important comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension, asthma, stroke) were substantially greater in the treated patients than the controls, the need for hospitalization was significantly lower, 1.2% in patients starting treatment before day 7 of symptoms, 3.2% for patients starting treatment after day 7, and 5.4% for controls, P-value<.0001. No cardiac arrhythmias were reported in the 412 treated patients.... Examination of the database for adverse events reported from the beginning of the database in 1968 through 2019 and into the beginning of 2020, shows for hydroxychloroquine 1064 adverse event reports including 200 deaths for the total of cardiac causes that could be both specifically and broadly classified as rhythm-related. Of these, 57 events including 10 deaths were attributed to Torsades de Pointes and long QT-interval syndrome combined. This concerns the entirety of HCQ use over more than 50 years of data, likely millions of uses and of longer-term use than the 5 days recommended for Covid-19 treatment. ... These very small numbers of arrhythmias, as well as the null results in this very large empirical study should therefore put to rest the anxieties about population excess mortality of HCQ+AZ outpatient use, either from cardiac arrhythmias, or as mortality from all causes.... No studies of Covid-19 outpatient HCQ+AZ use have shown higher mortality with such use than without, cardiac ORIGINAL arrhythmias included, thus there is no empirical downside to this combined medication use.... But for the great majority, I conclude that HCQ+AZ and HCQ+doxycycline, preferably with zinc (47) can be this outpatient treatment, at least until we find or add something better, whether that could be remdesivir or something else.
  3. Trump has been right all along despite some here believing in fake news. Dated May 28. http://covexit.com/yale-epidemiology-professor-urges-hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin-early-therapy-for-covid-19/ “Available evidence of efficacy of HCQ+AZ has been repeatedly described in the media as “anecdotal,” but most certainly is not.” A new article to be published by Oxford University Press, on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, calls for hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin to be made widely available and promoted immediately for physicians, to be prescribed for early outpatient treatment. The article, titled “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis,” is authored by Professor Harvey Risch, MD, from Yale University. Dr. Harvey Risch is Professor of Epidemiology in the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health at the Yale School of Public Health and Yale School of Medicine. Dr. Risch received his MD degree from the University of California San Diego and PhD from the University of Chicago. He was a faculty member in epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Toronto before coming to Yale. Find his complete bio here. We Cannot Afford the Luxury of Perfect Knowledge Professor Risch recognizes that, in an ideal world, randomized double-blinded controlled clinical trials are preferable, yet, regarding ongoing randomized trials with HCQ+AZ, he notes: “For the earliest trial, between now and September, assuming a flat epidemic curve of 10,000 deaths per week, I estimate that approximately 180,000 more deaths will occur in the US before the trial results are known.” “In this context, we cannot afford the luxury of perfect knowledge and must evaluate, now and on an ongoing basis, the evidence for benefit and risk of these medications.” The author describes various studies. He also compares the case fatality rates typically observed without treatment to those with HCQ+AZ treatment. For example, he notes that there was 12-13% mortality of hospitalized patients receiving placebos in the remdesivir trials both by Wang et al and in the ACT trials sponsored by NIH. Professor Risch also discusses the issue of adverse events, which brings him to conclude that: “the FDA, NIH and cardiology society warnings about cardiac arrhythmia adverse events, while appropriate for theoretical and physiological considerations about use of these medications, are not borne out in mortality in real-world usage of them.” “It would therefore be incumbent upon all three organizations to reevaluate their positions as soon as possible,” writes Professor Risch. It is Our Obligation Not to Stand By The analysis by Professor Risch brings him to the following concluding remarks. “Some people will have contraindications and will need other agents for treatment or to remain in isolation. But for the great majority, I conclude that HCQ+AZ and HCQ+doxycycline, preferably with zinc can be this outpatient treatment, at least until we find or add something better, whether that could be remdesivir or something else.” “It is our obligation not to stand by, just “carefully watching,” as the old and infirm and inner city of us are killed by this disease and our economy is destroyed by it and we have nothing to offer except high-mortality hospital treatment.” “We have a solution, imperfect, to attempt to deal with the disease. We have to let physicians employing good clinical judgement use it and informed patients choose it.” “There is a small chance that it may not work. But the urgency demands that we at least start to take that risk and evaluate what happens, and if our situation does not improve we can stop it …” “… but we will know that we did everything that we could instead of sitting by and letting hundreds of thousands die because we did not have the courage to act according to our rational calculations.”
  4. Whoever fired Bright had good reason to! https://aapsonline.org/fda-bureaucrat-brags-he-blocked-physician-prescribing-of-hydroxychloroquine-in-early-covid-19/ FDA Bureaucrat Brags On Blocking Physicians Prescribing Hydroxychloroqine in Early COVID-19 By Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D. How could a cheap, effective drug, FDA-approved and in use worldwide since 1955, suddenly be restricted for outpatient use by American physicians? On March 28, 2020, as physicians worldwide were seeing striking success using hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19, the FDA erected bureaucratic barriers. Rick Bright, Ph.D., is an FDA bureaucrat, vaccine researcher, and was appointed by President Obama on November 15, 2016 to head BARDA (Biomedical Advance Research and Development Authority, a sub-agency of the FDA). In an unprecedented move, Bright expanded his power and claimed credit for being the person imposing his will on all of us. In an appalling admission, Bright said: “Specifically, and contrary to misguided directives, I limited the broad use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, promoted by the administration as a panacea, but which clearly lack scientific merit.” Meanwhile, he promoted both remdesivir, a never-approved experimental antiviral in development by Gilead Sciences, and a vaccine for COVID-19. Early effective use of the older, safe, and available hydroxychloroquine, whose patents had expired decades ago, would decrease demand for these new products. Rick Bright’s dictatorial decree restricts the use of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) from the National Strategic Stockpile in COVID-19 to hospitalized patients only. States are using Bright’s fiat to impose broad restrictions limiting the drugs’ availability for physicians to use for outpatients to help them recover without hospitalization. In other countries, early use in outpatients is changing the life-and-death equation by reducing severity and spread of illness, greatly reducing the need for hospitalization and ventilators and markedly reducing deaths. By his own admission, Rick Bright, who is not a physician, knowingly and unilaterally countermanded Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar, Admiral Giroir in charge of Public Health Service and the President of the United States, who had directed BARDA to establish a Nationwide Expanded Access Investigational New Drug (“IND”) protocol for chloroquine, which would provide significantly greater outpatient access for the drug than would an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Unlike an EUA, a Nationwide Expanded Access IND protocol would make the drug available for the treatment of COVID-19 outside a hospital setting at physicians’ medical discretion based on patients’ needs. How does one non-physician bureaucrat have such power with impunity? How can one person brag about blocking physicians’ attempt to reduce hospitalization and deaths during a national emergency? It is a falsehood to say that the administration promoted HCQ as a “panacea” or that this medicine “clearly lacks scientific merit.” Both statements are contradicted by video recordings of Presidential briefings, by NIH/CDC studies going back 15 years, and by U.S. and worldwide clinical outcomes studies in COVID-19. It is unprecedented to restrict physicians from prescribing FDA-approved drugs for a newly discovered use—“off-label.” This is contrary to FDA regulations in place since World War II. Basic science studies published in 2005 from our own CDC and NIH showed clearly that CQ and HCQ work early in SARS-CoV to block viral entry and multiplication, and suggested that they would not work as well in late-stage disease when the viral load had become huge. When SARS-CoV-1 waned and disappeared by late 2003, the drugs were not submitted for FDA-approval for this coronavirus. In 2019, when Chinese doctors recognized the deadly impact of SARS-CoV-2, they began trying known and available anti-viral medicines, especially CQ and HCQ, based on 15-year-old studies. They shared information with South Korea, India, Turkey, Iran, and several other countries, who also began quickly and successfully using CQ and HCQ, alone or with azithromycin. Later, Brazil, Israel, Costa Rica, Australia, and others followed, with good results . Based on these initial clinical reports, President Trump said, at an early press briefing, that CQ and HCQ “offered hope.” More studies have replicated these findings. HCQ given within the first week of symptoms, especially with zinc, can prevent the virus from entering your body’s cells and taking over, much like people use locks and alarms to stop burglaries. Waiting until you are in the ICU is like installing home locks and alarm system after burglars have invaded, vandalized your home, and stolen all your valuables. The drugs cannot reliably undo the damage from the exaggerated immune response, or cytokine storm, triggered by COVID-19. Examples from the world data on May 18, 2020, which is updated daily, show how Third-World countries are faring far better than the U.S., where entrenched bureaucrats, governors, and medical and pharmacy boards are interfering with physicians’ medical decisions. Instead of orchestrating a war on HCQ, the media should be asking key questions, such as: How does ONE person, by his own admission, block directives from his superiors to expand availability of HCQ for outpatients and nursing home patients in the U.S.?What is the cost in lives and economic damage resulting from one person’s decision to restrict physicians’ independent medical decision-making?How many nursing home deaths could have been prevented if physicians had been allowed early access to HCQ?Why are U.S. doctors and nurses prevented from using HCQ prophylactically when workers in China, South Korea, India, Brazil, Argentina, Israel, Australia, Turkey, France, and other countries can be protected?Why does the U.S. with its a much more sophisticated medical infrastructure have a much higher mortality rate than poor countries? Bright’s disastrous bureaucratic decision may well be remembered as one of the worst preventable medical tragedies in our time. Never again should one government employee be allowed unrestrained power without oversight, and allowed to make a sweeping order interfering with the prescribing authority of front-line physicians trying to save lives.
  5. Thankfully this site has a very effective search function. Plus as for me, if you had not mentioned IN THIS THREAD the new topic regarding risks of lockdown I would have never known. If it were posted here I would have. But I'm not going do back and forth on it.
  6. On Fox tonight...Brad Hunstable was interviewed about his 12 year old son who killed himself because of despair and isolation due to the lockdown. IF suicides and overdose deaths go up (say) 30%, not to mention alcoholism deaths, or certain muders from domestic abuse...it would probably rival if not exceed the virus itself. If people want a FAIR non-political picture, they should try to model THAT.
  7. You are right. I saw "margin" and immediately thought "margin of error." I appreciate the correction. If the Dems BELIEVE he has a good lead, I wonder why that enthusiasm level is so dang LOW??? Maybe I will feel differently later but I think that's about all I have to say on this.
  8. You and others (including Pi...famous "splitter" known for asking that side topics be taken to another thread) have had a chance to "air" your thoughts but please don't "hijack" the thread.
  9. Thanks (not) for the lesson. Do you need you eyes checked? The blue area GIVES the ACTUAL margins and the differences are within or with a fraction of a point of within the margins. AND this does not even account for the possible stealth Trump voter phenomenon, where they don't participate in polls or give false answers. That means then, you're in agreement WITH ME. At this time Trump seems to have the lead among likely voters in the key battleground States! YAY!
  10. indydave

    Morality Under God Or Atheism

    I am not trying to weaken your argument but maybe you would want to strengthen it. I believe I have seen a dog that will not take steak or any food unless it's owner gives it permission to take it. If the owner says wait, it will wait until it gets permission. I suppose it depends on how you define the term. We do have similarities to animals, especially the higher ones. But the question is are we ONLY animals. You say yes and I say no. And neither of us can prove it one way or the other in an absolute way. If God has not revealed his will to us, then I have no basis to say we are not only animals. The only way I know that I have a soul or that I may possibly live beyond this life is because it has been revealed from a reliable source. So what's your answer to my question, Goku? Is it true that with all of the efforts made here, you have not moved even one digit (in 10) away from your conversion to atheism?
  11. indydave

    Morality Under God Or Atheism

    He asked me to answer for him, and I've knocked on YOUR door for years. But he gave me strict instructions that there should be a limit to the knocking... as I'm sure you know (regarding pearls.)
  12. indydave

    Morality Under God Or Atheism

    And when the owner looked into my complaint about you, he shot down your criticism of me. Nah...a high priest does not have the ultimate power from on high. A steward is not the landowner. I do want to tip my hat that he defended me (or maybe himself...PS was writing in reply to me but he may have had someone besides me in mind) against the charge made by Perpetual. He didn't have to do that, so I appreciate that.
  13. ??? THAT WAS MY POINT. if you understand statistics you know it is false to say there is a lead if it is within the margin of error! And as I showed, the expert Nate Silver said that the real significant measure is of LIKELY voters and Trump has the lead there in the battleground states, where it counts. And it's only going to get stronger as Biden crawls out of his basement. For now, his handlers have decided that the less people see of him the better his polling will be. If I were to use the standard you have used in accusing me of plagiarism, I would say LIAR! (Because apparently you ACCIDENTALLY got your facts wrong. You should have KNOWN that was going to come back to bite you in the rear eventually...and it didn't take LONG.) My citation was May 1. The polls in your Fox links were April 18-21.
  14. ...and NOT BACKING DOWN. LOVE IT. Today all he said was that it is very suspicious and he believed the family would want to get to the bottom of it. If the family is Democrat, it is not surprising they want to try to bash Trump.
  15. I went to a very popular site especially among Democrats and I found that the individual polling for each of the states just HAPPENED in nearly every instance to show the margin of error (of something just above 1000 polled) to be exactly the same as Biden's "lead." (This article was May 1.) AND here was HIS commentary: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/weve-got-some-early-trump-vs-biden-swing-state-polling/ Also, as The New York Times’ Nate Cohn wrote recently, Trump is likely to look stronger when pollsters start limiting their results to “likely voters.” Most of the April surveys in these four states were conducted among registered voters or all adults, two groups that include some people who may not vote in November.4 In other words, this data suggests Trump may have an Electoral College advantage again — he could lose the popular vote and win the election. ### PLUS this didn't include info from Iowa or Ohio...where Trump CRUSHED Hillary. AND THANKFULLY, Republican adults, registered voters and LIKELY VOTERS...are about the same. Democrats...not so much.
×

Important Information

Our Terms