Coronavirus

[Reacher]

IU expected to survive in rankings of how colleges will fare due to Covid crisis-

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1CUs3HrqstC2oV3CF3_di4yW6Y4K_CIrUJNEEHCCKo7A/htmlview

[IUskim]

1 minute ago, Reacher said:

Frontline Dr's no longer to share their expertise? They worried China might benefit? That is seriously wrong. 

If you want to watch it go to Breitbart. They are the ones who live-streamed the video in the first place. 

[Inequality]

3 minutes ago, IUskim said:

If you want to watch it go to Breitbart. They are the ones who live-streamed the video in the first place. 

Also you can search twitter for Dr. Stella Immanuel

Edited July 28, 2020 by Inequality

[IUFLA]

5 minutes ago, Inequality said:

Also you can search twitter for Dr. Stella Immanuel

I'm tons more afraid of the censorship going on than I am of COVID-19...

[tdhoosier]

This is not censorship.  You can go to Brietbart and watch the video. Just type in the url....it’s that simple. If the government made Brietbart take down that video then it would be censorship. Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are private companies that under no obligation to show anything they don’t want to. Don’t like it? Then stop using their platforms. It’s your right. 

this is essentially the same as saying Costco is taking away your freedom because they require masks in their store. It’s their store. It’s their decision.

[Inequality]

21 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

I'm tons more afraid of the censorship going on than I am of COVID-19...

The censorship paints its own picture.

[IUFLA]

11 minutes ago, tdhoosier said:

This is not censorship.  You can go to Brietbart and watch the video. Just type in the url....it’s that simple. If the government made Brietbart take down that video then it would be censorship. Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are private companies that under no obligation to show anything they don’t want to. Don’t like it? Then stop using their platforms. It’s your right. 

this is essentially the same as saying Costco is taking away your freedom because they require masks in their store. It’s their store. It’s their decision.

It is indeed censorship...

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups.

That's from the ACLU...

You're correct in legality, but totally off base in gauging danger...

 

[Reacher]

17 minutes ago, tdhoosier said:

This is not censorship.  You can go to Brietbart and watch the video. Just type in the url....it’s that simple. If the government made Brietbart take down that video then it would be censorship. Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are private companies that under no obligation to show anything they don’t want to. Don’t like it? Then stop using their platforms. It’s your right. 

this is essentially the same as saying Costco is taking away your freedom because they require masks in their store. It’s their store. It’s their decision.

It is not the same. Costco gas about 15% of the market and Facebook gets over 70% of marketing $. One is a (near?) monopoly. Eventually they will be broken up and or regulated like utilities. 

[HoosierDom]

It's like if someone came on here with several posts a day about some random 5 star player secretly commiting to IU. The site can either remove those posts (censor them according to the above definition), or just become a source of pure garbage info. I think we all agree that HSN allowing things to stand, even though some info proves incorrect, is a good thing. But, there is a theoretical point where they have to act. Stella is that spammer of garbage that has to be removed if your site is to have any value. 

[tdhoosier]

Again, you can watch it; let's not act like it doesn't exist anywhere on the internet. Their message is still getting out. If anything, because everybody is crying censorship, more people are watching it.  

What's the opposite side of this argument? Who decides Facebook posting policy if it's not Facebook? @Reacher are you saying that the government should regulate Facebook content? Because I'm sure that's a slippery slope we don't want to go down. 

Look, I'm no fan of Facebook or where social media is going. If we want to go after Facebook, censorship violation is the wrong path. What's more concerning to me is that they take our personal information, at no charge to them, and sell it for advertising purposes. 

Edited July 28, 2020 by tdhoosier

[5fouls]

10 minutes ago, HoosierDom said:

. Stella is that spammer of garbage that has to be removed if your site is to have any value. 

The problem with the world we live in is that what one person sees as a 'spammer or garbage', someone else sees as the 'truth'.  How do we even begin to determine what should be censored.  The reality is that both sides have part of the truth, but are twisting it to fit their own agenda.  If everyone (including those in leadership positions well as the media) would just step back for a minute and truly work towards doing what it takes to beat this virus,  we would be in a much better place.

[Reacher]

21 minutes ago, tdhoosier said:

Again, you can watch it; let's not act like it doesn't exist anywhere on the internet. Their message is still getting out. If anything, because everybody is crying censorship, more people are watching it.  

What's the opposite side of this argument? Who decides Facebook posting policy if it's not Facebook? @Reacher are you saying that the government should regulate Facebook content? Because I'm sure that's a slippery slope we don't want to go down. 

Look, I'm no fan of Facebook or where social media is going. If we want to go after Facebook, censorship violation is the wrong path. What's more concerning to me is that they take our personal information, at no charge to them, and sell it for advertising purposes. 

I think Facebook should regulate itself. Since they, and others, aren't doing so fairly, then yes, the government should step in. Not to regulate content but to regulate Facebook to insure fairness and make sure they are not discriminating. I think, at this point, there can be no doubt that many companies are actively discriminating and censoring. If you do not see that, do some research.

[tdhoosier]

9 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

The problem with the world we live in is that what one person sees as a 'spammer or garbage', someone else sees as the 'truth'.  

Here's a Stella Immanuel sermon that wasn't 'censored' where she claims that DNA from space aliens is being used in medicine and that women develop cysts from demonic sperm after demonic sex dreams. I report. You decide. 😎

(5fouls, just having fun. Do agree with your overall assessment. It seems like we're too overwhelmed with distractions these days)

 

[tdhoosier]

1 minute ago, Reacher said:

I think Facebook should regulate itself. Since they, and others, aren't doing so fairly, then yes, the government should step in. Not to regulate content but to regulate Facebook to insure fairness and make sure they are not discriminating. I think, at this point, there can be no doubt that many companies are actively discriminating and censoring. If you do not see that, do some research.

Taking down that video is Facebook regulating itself though. I guess the point being is that one persons regulation is another's censorship. 

[Reacher]

1 minute ago, tdhoosier said:

Here's a Stella Immanuel sermon that wasn't 'censored' where she claims that DNA from space aliens is being used in medicine and that women develop cysts from demonic sperm after demonic sex dreams. I report. You decide. 😎

(5fouls, just having fun. Do agree with your overall assessment. It seems like we're too overwhelmed with distractions these days)

 

I don't know anything about this Dr. What I see from you, however, is an attack on her credibility. Why don't you argue against her position--whatever that is. Debate the issue, not the person. Maybe she is a lunatic, that doesn't mean she can't have credible information. 

[Reacher]

1 minute ago, tdhoosier said:

Taking down that video is Facebook regulating itself though. I guess the point being is that one persons regulation is another's censorship. 

I haven't seen the video. I do plan on watching tonight. My understanding is that it is Frontline doctor talking about what works and doesn't regarding Covid. Is there pornography in there? violence against ethnic groups? It seems that you would want as much information on this topic out there as possible and let people decide for themselves and, ultimately history, as to what is right. 

I think you hit the nail on the head with your last sentence. 

[5fouls]

It's entirely possible that in some situations hydroxychloriquine works and in others it does not.  It does not have to be an all or nothing thing like it is portrayed.

[tdhoosier]

I don't make it a habit of following pharmaceutical research, but do other drugs get studied this much? Man, I feel like every other day an HCQ study comes out.  The data pool of research seems to be vast for this one. I think the lesson learned is politicians should stay out of drug research claims (whether right or wrong) because it leads to a crap show. Too many people on both sides of the issue were drawing a line in the sand before any research was completed. Instead of finding whether or not this actually works, it's been minimized to a game of proving the other side wrong. This leads to a situation where, in the end, nobody is going to accept the results......which is sad. 

[5fouls]

6 minutes ago, tdhoosier said:

I don't make it a habit of following pharmaceutical research, but do other drugs get studied this much? Man, I feel like every other day an HCQ study comes out.  The data pool of research seems to be vast for this one. I think the lesson learned is politicians should stay out of drug research claims (whether right or wrong) because it leads to a crap show. Too many people on both sides of the issue were drawing a line in the sand before any research was completed. Instead of finding whether or not this actually works, it's been minimized to a game of proving the other side wrong. This leads to a situation where, in the end, nobody is going to accept the results......which is sad. 

Here are some things that jump out at me in the HCQ debate.

• A Brazilian test went tragically awry when they basically overdosed patients on the drug.
• Every drug has side effects.  And, every drug will work better in some instances than others.
• A lot of doctors believe in HCQ and a lot of others do not.  What that tells me is that doctors are letting personal experience dictate their view of it's effectiveness.  What I would like to know is what percentage believes in it versus what percentage does not.  Is it 50/50?  Or, is it 80/20 one way or the other.  If it's 80/20 either way, that actually tells me something.  But printing stories that Dr. Smith touts the drug while Dr. Jones cautions against it tell me nothing more than that particular doctor's belief.
• Remdesiver is an alternate drug that seems to have benefits.  That said, my understanding is Remdesiver is much more expensive than HCQ.  In other words, it's much more profitable.  As much as you would like to think that would not play a part, the reality is if you have two choices and one choice has more value to a special interest group, that special interest group is going to do everything possible to promote the choice that benefits it the most.  Could/Would that include misinformation about the competition?  Stuff like that happens all the time.  You would like to think it would not happen in a scenario like this, but with billions on the line, who knows.

[HoosierDom]

1 hour ago, Reacher said:

I don't know anything about this Dr. What I see from you, however, is an attack on her credibility. Why don't you argue against her position--whatever that is. Debate the issue, not the person. Maybe she is a lunatic, that doesn't mean she can't have credible information. 

Her entire "argument" is her credibility. She is essentially arguing, I have information/knowledge and you should listen to my conclusions, not the millions of doctors that disagree with me. This is not some politician with an idea and an unrelated sex scandal, this is someone arguing she is telling the truth and she should be trusted and everything else is a lie. 

[5fouls]

Not Covid or related to the current political environment, but it does bring to light some hypocrisy on the part of some social media platforms as to what they will keep up versus take down.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/28/perspectives/alison-andy-parker-murder-youtube-facebook/index.html

[5fouls]

3 minutes ago, HoosierDom said:

Her entire "argument" is her credibility. She is essentially arguing, I have information/knowledge and you should listen to my conclusions, not the millions of doctors that disagree with me. This is not some politician with an idea and an unrelated sex scandal, this is someone arguing she is telling the truth and she should be trusted and everything else is a lie. 

I may have missed it along the way, but is there proof that MILLIONS of doctors disagree with the benefits of HCQ?

As I mentioned in my earlier post, I have not seen a formal breakdown that compares the number of doctors that believe in HCQ versus the number of doctors that don't.  One news organization goes out and quotes 3-4 doctors that agree with their narrative, while another finds 3-4 that will say the opposite to fit their narrative.  Is there documented proof somewhere that MILLIONS of doctors actually feel one way or the other about HCQ?

[HoosierDom]

15 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

 

• A lot of doctors believe in HCQ and a lot of others do not.  What that tells me is that doctors are letting personal experience dictate their view of it's effectiveness.  What I would like to know is what percentage believes in it versus what percentage does not.  Is it 50/50?  Or, is it 80/20 one way or the other.  If it's 80/20 either way, that actually tells me something.  But printing stories that Dr. Smith touts the drug while Dr. Jones cautions against it tell me nothing more than that particular doctor's belief.

I don't think those sorts of questions that you are ever going to get reliable numbers on, no one polls that sort of thing, but even 80/20 is vastly overestimating how popular it is. Randomized studies show that more people die when taking it than when getting normal treatment. Its use has been widely rejected. 

[5fouls]

1 minute ago, HoosierDom said:

I don't think those sorts of questions that you are ever going to get reliable numbers on, no one polls that sort of thing, but even 80/20 is vastly overestimating how popular it is. Randomized studies show that more people die when taking it than when getting normal treatment. Its use has been widely rejected. 

Very few studies are randomized.  Most are trying to prove a particular narrative and will conduct the study in such a way that the narrative is 'proven'.  From my perspective, there are too many doctors out there that support the use of HCQ to totally dismiss it.  And, quite a few of those doctors are in foreign countries and don't care about the current political landscape in the U.S.

   

[tdhoosier]

4 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

Here are some things that jump out at me in the HCQ debate.

• A Brazilian test went tragically awry when they basically overdosed patients on the drug.
• Every drug has side effects.  And, every drug will work better in some instances than others.
• A lot of doctors believe in HCQ and a lot of others do not.  What that tells me is that doctors are letting personal experience dictate their view of it's effectiveness.  What I would like to know is what percentage believes in it versus what percentage does not.  Is it 50/50?  Or, is it 80/20 one way or the other.  If it's 80/20 either way, that actually tells me something.  But printing stories that Dr. Smith touts the drug while Dr. Jones cautions against it tell me nothing more than that particular doctor's belief.
• Remdesiver is an alternate drug that seems to have benefits.  That said, my understanding is Remdesiver is much more expensive than HCQ.  In other words, it's much more profitable.  As much as you would like to think that would not play a part, the reality is if you have two choices and one choice has more value to a special interest group, that special interest group is going to do everything possible to promote the choice that benefits it the most.  Could/Would that include misinformation about the competition?  Stuff like that happens all the time.  You would like to think it would not happen in a scenario like this, but with billions on the line, who knows.

I actually think that practicing doctors should be removed from the equation altogether. Practicing doctors aren't the ones that perform studies for precisely this reason: bias. That's why most studies are controlled, double blind and use placebos. Like you said, one doctor could've given HCQ to a patient who developed heart arrhythmia and formed a negative opinion of the drug. Another doctor could have given it to a patient who's symptoms improved in 3 days, so he/she formed a positive opinion about it. Both of these instances are individual cases that aren't representative. So pinning one doctor against another won't get us anywhere, whether it's 50/50, 60/40 or 70/30.