The WHO is a pile of crap along with the UN. Many, many people were given hydroxychloroquine when they had COVID-19 including my own sister and there were no side effects to be heard of. Some media pundits were all saying with absolute certainly that "it will kill you!" Now here the media claims Trump can't say this or that, but go on ahead and make their own claims. I think it's safe to say the the president may be a little more purvey to first hand knowledge over the media blather and propaganda. Especially since hydroxychloroquine modulates the immune system, and has been used for years and years for lupus, malaria and arthritis with no ill effects. It's sad to take a treatment and make it a political football at the expensive of people's lives all because Trump talked about it. There are even governors out there that refuse to let people use it. Excuse me, but this is a decision between the doctor and patient, not a blow hard no nothing politician. That really pisses me off!thecoalman wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 12:49 amThe study that concluded hydroxychloroquine was ineffective against covid-19 and even produced worse outcomes has been retracted. This is the study that caused the WHO to temporarily halt clinical studies which have been resumed.
https://www.thelancet.com/lancet/articl ... 3620313246
If you do want to dig around the gist of it is that other researchers in the field began to question some things, specifically the amount of data they claimed to be using. The company supplying the data was unknown, small amount of employees etc. Basically it would be technically impossible for them to have it in such short time with so few employees. Yesterday they started a review and the company refused to provide a full set of data so it's been retracted by three of the authors. A fourth author owns the data company in question. No comment from him apparently.
Nothing to see here folks....
Catch that? Used since 1955 and is in the WHO's list of essential drugs. You see that word "safe" there? Don't like that? Then be an idiot and edit the article and watch your edit get removed.Hydroxychloroquine was approved for medical use in the United States in 1955. It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines, the safest and most effective medicines needed in a health system. In 2017, it was the 128th most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than five million prescriptions. The speculative use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID‑19 threatens its availability for people with established indications.
I have to respond to this blather.warmweer wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 3:47 pmMaybe you should quit, or at least reduce the Haldol you're taking. Although it is used to calm down patients with specific symptoms, it's clearly not working for you, or the side effects are worse than expected.
The exact statement is:John connor wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 7:52 amSo the WHO is saying now that if you're asymptomatic you may not be spreading this like what was originally thought. Source: https://www.foxnews.com/science/coronav ... d-rare-who
Now since WHO has a load of issues with this pandemic, I think I'll wait and see if another organization echos the same data like the CDC and doctors.
Note: it seems to be rare.From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual.
No: there's no obligation whatsoever to respond.
What's important in relation to reopening the economy is risk assessment: especially related to work. If it turns out that the risk that asymptomatic carriers aren't spreaders (purely hypothetical at this stage), then that's a part of the population that could return to work instead of having to self-isolate.John connor wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 8:53 amI don't know. All I know is that this virus and others are so damn small you have to use an electron microscope to see it. And I think EVERYONE can carry it on their fingers and others will pick it up, touch finger/s to mouth, nose and eyes and bam! Now you have it. So in this sense, whether you're asymptomatic or not doesn't mean jack. Does it "seem" like common sense, or is WHO being Huh?
It's not that simple: antibodies are produced by the infected person. Extracting antibodies and giving those to other persons does not make the body copy those. What it really does is attack the virus, thus reducing the stress put on the body of the recipient, giving it more time to react itself (not entirely correct but that's the principle : I'm not going to write an essay describing the many ways a body reacts to an infection (and also overreacts).John connor wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 8:53 amI'm not a virologist, biologist, any type of scientist, chemist, etc, but why hasn't there been (maybe there has) any talk about cloning antibodies and mass producing that for a vaccine? Now I do remember that I guess a clone only has half its life, but it may be better than nothing in this endeavor. Besides, once the antibody is introduced inside the body, the body will create copies of it. So the half life issue would be null and void you'd think. That is if we can clone antibodies.
Yes but this is not an at home recording but created in a professional studio.
Of course the original is much better. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be normal. But of course there was a lot more technic and adjustments in the game.
I've always wanted to know who Tommy and Jeena were. I think he mentions their names in two different songs. I have lots of Bon Jovi in my Spotify account, but I find myself skipping the tracks when they play because hearing the same songs some 500^10 power all over again gets mighty old. Just like all the Tom Petty I have in my playlist. Been listening to Tom Petty since the 80s and today I probably heard the song 'I won't Back Down' 1,000 times already. But for some odd reason I had this song on repeat for at least 5 hours straight while on my computer. I think it's because I can use my imagination and see myself there... ah, 'the good life.'