We can't all have our s@hit as together as the Evangelicals and Right Wing Catholics that back tRump.

hanky1 said:

---

I have long pondered why some in America worship this false idol, this Golden Calf, named Fauci.

People in fear need a God to worship. When Moses left the Israelites they worshipped the Golden Calf. Now liberals, who have been abandoned by their previous God, Barack Hussein Obama, need to create another God who will comfort them and provide their weak minds with security and comfort. I understand the need for comfort and assurance when living in fear. But it does not change the truth that Fauci is your false God.

---

Acknowledging someone's expertise and contribution and giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who has earned credibility is not worship.

Worship is what the mutated party that used to be my party does when pandering to a clear idiot like Trump.

I do not worship Fauci, but I am humble enough to acknowledge that someone who has worked on infectious disease for over 50 years probably knows more than someone who looked up some internet article by some yahoo and feels like they now know more than an expert like Fauci.

And while I do object to some idiot politicians on the left who don't understand the scientific process and think the latest theory is law justifying shutting down debate and shutting down the country, I am happy to acknowledge that, while all of this is still just something we are all figuring out, Fauci has a far greater understanding, and his guess is probably a lot more informed, than some who thinks bankrupting companies and passing a test that shows his brain hasn't shut down gives him some miraculous insight into infectious disease.

This is why Captain Catastrophe and his Merry Band of Idiots are dangerous. His support of the use of Hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID is dangerous at best given how many people listen to him. His reliance on this doctor who is also a preacher is laughable at best and she should be receiving a letter shortly warning her to stop making such outlandish claims concerning this medication that is used for other conditions and is effective in those instances. The difference in dosages, frequency, and the conditions being treated means that trials were necessary and those trials have indicated that it is not effective for COVID 19. It does not reduce mortality and does not benefit recovery and that is why the trials were stopped. Captain Catastrophe's continued mentioning of Hydroxychloroquine is not what a responsible leader does and is bordering on homicidal should individuals take it due to his suggestions and die.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Cal said:

---

..

---

Since you prefer the FT, here's their chart of daily new cases. The EU dropped to 5k cases per day and our new case count has soared to 60k+. As you know, deaths lag cases and deaths are rising again (which you said wouldn't occur - more on that below). Our average has more than doubled in the last few weeks and for all we know could continue to climb for some period of time.



Time and time again you have been wrong and you just press forward ignoring your prior unsubstantiated claims to make new ones rather than acknowledge that you don't really know what you're doing.

Because you enjoy cherrypicking, I will cherrypick one of your best posts. At the end of June you were arguing (like you are now) that it will just go away. You said we shouldn't look at new cases, we should look at deaths (because at the time deaths were declining).

...So here we are at the end of July and daily deaths are increasing. Do you stand corrected as you said you would? No, of course not. Instead, you continue to promise that salvation is just around the corner.
...

---

The number of new cases has long decoupled from the number of deaths; the sharp increase in new cases is largely dependent on changes in testing volume and policies over the past few months.

We know this because the large increase in the number of cases in Europe observed over since June has not been accompanied with a large increase in the number of deaths:

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&country=~Europe&deathsMetric=true&dailyFreq=true&hideControls=true&smoothing=0&pickerMetric=location&pickerSort=asc

Once again, what's true for Europe will also, to a large extent, apply to the US.


In the US, states/cities that were hit hard in Spring (NY/NJ. MA, Chicago etc) all display a similar bell-shaped curve and have not shown any rebound in new deaths.

The death curves for Italy, France, the UK, Sweden, Belgium, NY/NJ, Chicago/IL, Boston/MA all look the same, asymmetric bell curves that taper off slower than they peak.


In the US, there is still a large differential in the death rates between states like TX and states that were hit earlier like Louisiana. Texas' death rate stands at 1/4 that of LA, the states being somewhat similar we would expect the gap to narrow over the course of the next few weeks. The current slight increase in death rates observed at the national level is due to large states like TX whose bell curve is currently peaking.

If you really want to get a better picture of when precisely the new deaths will fade completely, as is the case now in France, Italy, NY/NJ, you need to look at the individual curves for large urban centers like Dallas, Houston or Phoenix which are still in the throes of the pandemic, but at the national scale, the worst is well behind.

hanky1 said:

---

I have long pondered why some in America worship this false idol, this Golden Calf, named Fauci.

People in fear need a God to worship. When Moses left the Israelites they worshipped the Golden Calf. Now liberals, who have been abandoned by their previous God, Barack Hussein Obama, need to create another God who will comfort them and provide their weak minds with security and comfort. I understand the need for comfort and assurance when living in fear. But it does not change the truth that Fauci is your false God.

---

In the mean time, hanky1, isn't living in fear because he takes comfort in his idol!

Cal88 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Cal said:

---

..

---

Since you prefer the FT, here's their chart of daily new cases. The EU dropped to 5k cases per day and our new case count has soared to 60k+. As you know, deaths lag cases and deaths are rising again (which you said wouldn't occur - more on that below). Our average has more than doubled in the last few weeks and for all we know could continue to climb for some period of time.



Time and time again you have been wrong and you just press forward ignoring your prior unsubstantiated claims to make new ones rather than acknowledge that you don't really know what you're doing.

Because you enjoy cherrypicking, I will cherrypick one of your best posts. At the end of June you were arguing (like you are now) that it will just go away. You said we shouldn't look at new cases, we should look at deaths (because at the time deaths were declining).

...So here we are at the end of July and daily deaths are increasing. Do you stand corrected as you said you would? No, of course not. Instead, you continue to promise that salvation is just around the corner.
...

---

The number of new cases has long decoupled from the number of deaths; the sharp increase in new cases is largely dependent on changes in testing volume and policies over the past few months.

We know this because the large increase in the number of cases in Europe observed over since June has not been accompanied with a large increase in the number of deaths:

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&country=~Europe&deathsMetric=true&dailyFreq=true&hideControls=true&smoothing=0&pickerMetric=location&pickerSort=asc

Once again, what's true for Europe will also, to a large extent, apply to the US.


In the US, states/cities that were hit hard in Spring (NY/NJ. MA, Chicago etc) all display a similar bell-shaped curve and have not shown any rebound in new deaths.

The death curves for Italy, France, the UK, Sweden, Belgium, NY/NJ, Chicago/IL, Boston/MA all look the same, asymmetric bell curves that taper off slower than they peak.


In the US, there is still a large differential in the death rates between states like TX and states that were hit earlier like Louisiana. Texas' death rate stands at 1/4 that of LA, the states being somewhat similar we would expect the gap to narrow over the course of the next few weeks. The current slight increase in death rates observed at the national level is due to large states like TX whose bell curve is currently peaking.

If you really want to get a better picture of when precisely the new deaths will fade completely, as is the case now in France, Italy, NY/NJ, you need to look at the individual curves for large urban centers like Dallas, Houston or Phoenix which are still in the throes of the pandemic, but at the national scale, the worst is well behind.

---

I can think of one material difference between the US and Europe.

calbear93 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Big C said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Big C said:

---

There ARE some reputable people -- I'm not talking about Trump -- throughout the world who claim it is effective against COVID-19. One of the arguments as to why it is having the kibosh put on it here is that it is cheap and plentiful and therefore Big Pharma won't be making big moolah on it.

Note that I'm not saying that there is a preponderance of evidence that it works, just that there is a decent chance. It'll be interesting, a few years down the road, to see how all this turns out. (Plus, I'll be able to go out for beers again and not have to wear a stupid mask every time I leave the house.)

---

Really? You cannot give any weight to any conspiracy theory that some in the government are gravely getting us into a recession, huge deficit, material weakening of the dollar and all those death without anyone doing an expose because they want to help pharma like Pfizer that until TCJA was going to become an Irish company, can you? I mean, that would be like spending the rest their lives in prison and they and their family living in eternal ignominy. What would be the motivation? Some campaign funding?

---

If Big Pharma is putting the kibosh on it -- I'm not saying they are, just that there's a chance -- it would be more subtle than that. Big money often does influence the practice of medicine in this country.

The if-you-like-HCLQ-you-must-like-Trump factor also could play in. And, of course, it might just be that it doesn't work (the most likely scenario). If I had COVID, though, and there was nothing else to take, I might take it under a doctor's supervision.

---

That would violate Anti-Kickback and False Claims Act if Big Pharma influenced doctors in such an obvious way (especially doctors who bill Medicare), and those contributions could be apparent in disclosure required by the Sunshine Act. I understand that there are still some subtle influences on peddling their medicine, but I doubt it would get to the level of suppressing a potential cure for COVID-19.

---

There is nothing subtle about the PR and advertising budget of big pharma, which IIRC amounts to $30 billion per year in the US alone.

---

You are talking about two different things.

Pharma advertising its product is different from using monetary or other value transfer to influence medical providers who also bill Medicare. The first is legal as long as not false and as long the intended use is cleared through pre-marketing notification with the FDA. The second is a criminal violation. So, the implication that big Pharma is using their money to cause medical providers to provide false medical study to suppress a legitimate treatment or cure for COVID-19 is hard to believe.

---

Here is the precise annual breakdown of Big Pharma's advertizing and PR/influence peddling budget:

Quote:

---

Of the nearly $30 billion that health companies now spend on medical marketing each year, around 68 percent (or about $20 billion) goes to persuading doctors and other medical professionals not consumers of the benefits of prescription drugs. That's according to an in-depth analysis published in JAMA this week. Jan 11, 2019

Big Pharma shells out $20B each year to schmooze docs, $6B on drug ads
Persuading doctors and direct-to-consumer ads land 1-2 punch for knockout sales.

---

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/01/healthcare-industry-spends-30b-on-marketing-most-of-it-goes-to-doctors/

If you don't think that the $20 billion spent annually by big firms like Gilead in seminars, junkets and other PR activities to push drugs like Remdisivir, or gain a very strong influence over the medical establishment, you might be a bit naive.

Consider that back in early Spring on the day Dr. Raoult first announced his success using HCQ, Gilead 's valuation lost nearly $10 billion. The stakes are very high here... Gilead's treatment costs over $3,000 per patient, while HCQ is roughly 1,000 times cheaper.

Big Pharma is the leading advertiser on TV programs and the MSM, which has repercussions over the content it provides. The MSM and television is still a force that shapes the worldviews of its main target group of affluent Boomers. That segment, especially those in Blue cities, tends to have very high trust in their institutions and will most often reject out of hand basic evidence going against their narrative, it's a basic case of cognitive dissonance.


Stepping back a bit, a good start on the argument about HCQ should focus on its side effects, because if you still believe that this is a dangerous drug, then there is no point whatsoever in going any further. How you perceive the risks of HCQ is an excellent bellwether of your level of credulity and blind trust in the MSM and medical establishment.

---

Cal88, I have represented some of the biggest Pharma companies, and I am fully aware of the internal compliance matters related to Anti-Kickback Statutes and False Claims Act, and barriers they implement to ensure that they are in compliance as well as self-regulating entities like AdvaMed. They also need to disclose any payments made to any healthcare providers under the Sunshine Act. Where are the payments to Harvard Medical School that would cause them to distort and suppress actual results?

I think you are confusing the original implication of illegal (and quite criminal and not just civil) influence on healthcare providers like Harvard Medical School and the doctors there to legitimate marketing of their products to the public and doctors (which they can only do upon filing a pre-market notification and only on the intended use approved by the FDA following different phases of clinical trials). Some of my close friends are senior executives at Pharma companies, and I don't think you really know what you are talking about.

---

I think much of the $20 billion spent annually by big pharma to influence the medical establishment will fall in a grey zone, I'm not naive enough to believe that this spending on PR activities aimed at the medical establishment does not have an impact on big pharma's bottom line, or does not result in situations of conflict of interest given the shear volume spent here.

The industry is also the largest lobbyist with an annual budget of nearly $300 million, this along with the revolving door policy in regulatory bodies like the FDA and CDC goes a long way into determining the norms behind Anti-Kickback Statutes and False Claims Act.

Quote:

---

...So, no, I don't believe Pharma companies are spending money to get places like Harvard Medical School to suppress actual results on HCQ and have people die while there is a legitimate cure available.

---

I think it's a bit naive to think that big pharma, which funds most research at Harvard and other universities, doesn't use this financial lever to their advantage. Here is a quick search on the situation in Canada, where the regulatory landscape is more stringent than in the US:

Quote:

---

In a study published in PloS One, we examined the conflict of interest (COI) policies at all 17 medical schools across the country. Our findings reveal a glaring problem, and something that should concern all of us. The majority of medical schools (12 of 17) have generally weak or non-existent COI policies, and four schools had policies that were moderately restrictive. Only one medical school Western University had stringent COI rules.

In other words, the bulk of our doctors-in-training in Canada are receiving health information that is potentially biased and misleading.

Here's a telling example: Between 2002 and 2006, the University of Toronto held a pain-management course for medical and other health science professional students that was partly funded by grants from Purdue Pharma LP, the maker of OxyContin. As part of the course, a chronic pain-management book funded and copyrighted by Purdue Pharma was distributed to the students free of charge by a lecturer who worked in partnership with Purdue Pharma and was external to University of Toronto. The wording in the book exaggerated both the benefits and the approved uses for these medications, based on the current evidence at that time. Despite recognition of these concerns by the university after a student complained, those who attended the sessions were never informed of the bias or the problematic content of the lectures and book (which was used in a related course up to 2010).

The most poorly regulated areas noted in our study include curriculum selection, receiving free drug samples, visits from pharmaceutical sales representatives and taking part in speaking engagements on behalf of pharmaceutical companies.

Bottom line: Unrestrictive policies allow industry to influence medical residents' education about appropriate, effective and safe medicines, as well as prescribing choices.

---

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/our-medical-schools-must-not-become-shills-for-big-pharma/article13188578/



And Stateside, from a study published in JAMA:

Quote:

---

Almost every major U.S.-based pharmaceutical company in 2012and nearly 40 percent worldwidehad at least one board member in a leadership position from a U.S. academic medical center, raising potentially problematic conflict-of-interest questions. The board members were compensated an average of $312,564 by the pharmaceutical companies, while concurrently holding clinical or administrative leadership positions at academic medical centers.

---

The study's senior author, Welld Gallad, MD, MPH points out:

Quote:

---

[P]harmaceutical industry board membership by academic medical center leaders could lead to a different kind of potential conflict of interest, since academic leaders wield considerably more influence over research, clinical and educational missions than ordinary physicians or staff who may be targeted for gifts by pharmaceutical representatives.

---

Dr. Gallad adds:

Quote:

---

The public will have to decide whether these non-profit, and in many cases publicly funded, academic institutions can manage these potential conflicts with internal policies, or whether additional regulation is needed.

---

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1853147

Blueblood said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

I have long pondered why some in America worship this false idol, this Golden Calf, named Fauci.

People in fear need a God to worship. When Moses left the Israelites they worshipped the Golden Calf. Now liberals, who have been abandoned by their previous God, Barack Hussein Obama, need to create another God who will comfort them and provide their weak minds with security and comfort. I understand the need for comfort and assurance when living in fear. But it does not change the truth that Fauci is your false God.

---

In the mean time, hanky1, isn't living in fear because he takes comfort in his idol!

---

I think he has two idols:

calbear93 said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

I have long pondered why some in America worship this false idol, this Golden Calf, named Fauci.

People in fear need a God to worship. When Moses left the Israelites they worshipped the Golden Calf. Now liberals, who have been abandoned by their previous God, Barack Hussein Obama, need to create another God who will comfort them and provide their weak minds with security and comfort. I understand the need for comfort and assurance when living in fear. But it does not change the truth that Fauci is your false God.

---

Acknowledging someone's expertise and contribution and giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who has earned credibility is not worship.

Worship is what the mutated party that used to be my party does when pandering to a clear idiot like Trump.

I do not worship Fauci, but I am humble enough to acknowledge that someone who has worked on infectious disease for over 50 years probably knows more than someone who looked up some internet article by some yahoo and feels like they now know more than an expert like Fauci.

And while I do object to some idiot politicians on the left who don't understand the scientific process and think the latest theory is law justifying shutting down debate and shutting down the country, I am happy to acknowledge that, while all of this is still just something we are all figuring out, Fauci has a far greater understanding, and his guess is probably a lot more informed, than some who thinks bankrupting companies and passing a test that shows his brain hasn't shut down gives him some miraculous insight into infectious disease.

---

Respect for his expertise?

You mean like how many demanded he be named "sexiest man alive"?

Or the scores of people with signs declaring thy want to fellate him?

Or his endless interviews on talk shows and all the softball questions they ask him? Has anyone ever asked him about all the times he's been wrong and asked him to explain himself ? No.

Cal88 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Cal said:

---

..

---

Since you prefer the FT, here's their chart of daily new cases. The EU dropped to 5k cases per day and our new case count has soared to 60k+. As you know, deaths lag cases and deaths are rising again (which you said wouldn't occur - more on that below). Our average has more than doubled in the last few weeks and for all we know could continue to climb for some period of time.



Time and time again you have been wrong and you just press forward ignoring your prior unsubstantiated claims to make new ones rather than acknowledge that you don't really know what you're doing.

Because you enjoy cherrypicking, I will cherrypick one of your best posts. At the end of June you were arguing (like you are now) that it will just go away. You said we shouldn't look at new cases, we should look at deaths (because at the time deaths were declining).

...So here we are at the end of July and daily deaths are increasing. Do you stand corrected as you said you would? No, of course not. Instead, you continue to promise that salvation is just around the corner.
...

---

The number of new cases has long decoupled from the number of deaths; the sharp increase in new cases is largely dependent on changes in testing volume and policies over the past few months.

We know this because the large increase in the number of cases in Europe observed over since June has not been accompanied with a large increase in the number of deaths:

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&country=~Europe&deathsMetric=true&dailyFreq=true&hideControls=true&smoothing=0&pickerMetric=location&pickerSort=asc

Once again, what's true for Europe will also, to a large extent, apply to the US.


In the US, states/cities that were hit hard in Spring (NY/NJ. MA, Chicago etc) all display a similar bell-shaped curve and have not shown any rebound in new deaths.

The death curves for Italy, France, the UK, Sweden, Belgium, NY/NJ, Chicago/IL, Boston/MA all look the same, asymmetric bell curves that taper off slower than they peak.


In the US, there is still a large differential in the death rates between states like TX and states that were hit earlier like Louisiana. Texas' death rate stands at 1/4 that of LA, the states being somewhat similar we would expect the gap to narrow over the course of the next few weeks. The current slight increase in death rates observed at the national level is due to large states like TX whose bell curve is currently peaking.

If you really want to get a better picture of when precisely the new deaths will fade completely, as is the case now in France, Italy, NY/NJ, you need to look at the individual curves for large urban centers like Dallas, Houston or Phoenix which are still in the throes of the pandemic, but at the national scale, the worst is well behind.

---

You don't have a reasonable basis for your claims. You're just cherry picking and curve fitting.

You said that the number of new cases is decoupled from deaths which is preposterous. They are absolutely coupled - with a lag between the two because death happens weeks after infection. Up until a few weeks ago, you were able to make the fatuous claim because the lag hadn't caught up with death rates, but that's not the case any more. As we've gotten better treating COVID over time (for a wide variety of reasons) and as the mix has shifted younger, the CFR has gotten lower, but it's still intricately tied to the infection rate.

You weave all of these self-sealing conspiracy theories together in order to support whatever your argument du jour happens to be in order to wish away the data that conflicts with your worldview. You said that all of the death curves look the same, but let me introduce you to four states that don't seem to comply with your curve-fitting exercise. Unfortunately, a number of states that were hit early with COVID are experiencing rebounds in deaths - including California.

I know that when presented with this, you will just dissemble and clam that it's different populations within each state getting infected in a serial fashion and that we have to drill down deeper and deeper. But you have no idea whether the fact that the US has responded to this pandemic in a unique fashion (failing by choice) is the real reason we alone among our peer nations continue to see an upswing in deaths.






It's very simple. At the end of June you said let's revisit at the end of July. Well here we are and you have been proven wrong. Earn some credibility and admit you were wrong. Admit that you don't know what's going to happen tomorrow, next week and next month and stop making hare-brained predictions. Join the rest of us in wait and see mode rather than providing false hope to anyone daft enough to think that your advocacy is bankable.

hanky1 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

I have long pondered why some in America worship this false idol, this Golden Calf, named Fauci.

People in fear need a God to worship. When Moses left the Israelites they worshipped the Golden Calf. Now liberals, who have been abandoned by their previous God, Barack Hussein Obama, need to create another God who will comfort them and provide their weak minds with security and comfort. I understand the need for comfort and assurance when living in fear. But it does not change the truth that Fauci is your false God.

---

Acknowledging someone's expertise and contribution and giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who has earned credibility is not worship.

Worship is what the mutated party that used to be my party does when pandering to a clear idiot like Trump.

I do not worship Fauci, but I am humble enough to acknowledge that someone who has worked on infectious disease for over 50 years probably knows more than someone who looked up some internet article by some yahoo and feels like they now know more than an expert like Fauci.

And while I do object to some idiot politicians on the left who don't understand the scientific process and think the latest theory is law justifying shutting down debate and shutting down the country, I am happy to acknowledge that, while all of this is still just something we are all figuring out, Fauci has a far greater understanding, and his guess is probably a lot more informed, than some who thinks bankrupting companies and passing a test that shows his brain hasn't shut down gives him some miraculous insight into infectious disease.

---

Respect for his expertise?

You mean like how many demanded he be named "sexiest man alive"?

Or the scores of people with signs declaring thy want to fellate him?

Or his endless interviews on talk shows and all the softball questions they ask him? Has anyone ever asked him about all the times he's been wrong and asked him to explain himself ? No.

---

No, his expertise on contagious disease.

Did you misread my statement that he has over 50 years of working on infectious disease to mean I was relying on other people's demand on being named "sexiest man alive"? In determining whether he is an expert, why do you care about whether some women find him sexy?

Do you believe that him leading our country on infectious disease, including AIDS, make him an expert? Or do you feel like because women find him attractive that you can no longer rely on his 50 years of experience and would rather listen to someone who wants to see if we can inject Lysol?

Don't see your logic or your anger that he is popular. I don't care that he is popular. I care that he is an expert based on years of experience and the work he has done in the past on other infectious disease for our country.

I may have missed it but are people thinking he is an expert because he is popular or is he popular because, when we have a president who thrives in giving overtly idiotic advice and we have the other idiotic leaders who parrot the stupid president, Fauci is someone who is clearly intelligent and provides his most reasoned estimates and guidance?

calbear93 said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

I have long pondered why some in America worship this false idol, this Golden Calf, named Fauci.

People in fear need a God to worship. When Moses left the Israelites they worshipped the Golden Calf. Now liberals, who have been abandoned by their previous God, Barack Hussein Obama, need to create another God who will comfort them and provide their weak minds with security and comfort. I understand the need for comfort and assurance when living in fear. But it does not change the truth that Fauci is your false God.

---

Acknowledging someone's expertise and contribution and giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who has earned credibility is not worship.

Worship is what the mutated party that used to be my party does when pandering to a clear idiot like Trump.

I do not worship Fauci, but I am humble enough to acknowledge that someone who has worked on infectious disease for over 50 years probably knows more than someone who looked up some internet article by some yahoo and feels like they now know more than an expert like Fauci.

And while I do object to some idiot politicians on the left who don't understand the scientific process and think the latest theory is law justifying shutting down debate and shutting down the country, I am happy to acknowledge that, while all of this is still just something we are all figuring out, Fauci has a far greater understanding, and his guess is probably a lot more informed, than some who thinks bankrupting companies and passing a test that shows his brain hasn't shut down gives him some miraculous insight into infectious disease.

---

Respect for his expertise?

You mean like how many demanded he be named "sexiest man alive"?

Or the scores of people with signs declaring thy want to fellate him?

Or his endless interviews on talk shows and all the softball questions they ask him? Has anyone ever asked him about all the times he's been wrong and asked him to explain himself ? No.

---

No, his expertise on contagious disease.

Did you misread my statement that he has over 50 years of working on infectious disease to mean I was relying on other people's demand on being named "sexiest man alive"? In determining whether he is an expert, why do you care about whether some women find him sexy?

Do you believe that him leading our country on infectious disease, including AIDS, make him an expert? Or do you feel like because women find him attractive that you can no longer rely on his 50 years of experience and would rather listen to someone who wants to see if we can inject Lysol?

Don't see your logic or your anger that he is popular. I don't care that he is popular. I care that he is an expert based on years of experience and the work he has done in the past on other infectious disease for our country.

I may have missed it but are people thinking he is an expert because he is popular or is he popular because when we have a president who thrives in giving overtly idiotic advise Fauci is someone who is intelligent and provides his most reasoned estimates and guidance?

---

He has led our country's response during COVID and he has failed. Failed spectacularly. Strange you wouldn't know this from the media love.

hanky1 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

I have long pondered why some in America worship this false idol, this Golden Calf, named Fauci.

People in fear need a God to worship. When Moses left the Israelites they worshipped the Golden Calf. Now liberals, who have been abandoned by their previous God, Barack Hussein Obama, need to create another God who will comfort them and provide their weak minds with security and comfort. I understand the need for comfort and assurance when living in fear. But it does not change the truth that Fauci is your false God.

---

Acknowledging someone's expertise and contribution and giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who has earned credibility is not worship.

Worship is what the mutated party that used to be my party does when pandering to a clear idiot like Trump.

I do not worship Fauci, but I am humble enough to acknowledge that someone who has worked on infectious disease for over 50 years probably knows more than someone who looked up some internet article by some yahoo and feels like they now know more than an expert like Fauci.

And while I do object to some idiot politicians on the left who don't understand the scientific process and think the latest theory is law justifying shutting down debate and shutting down the country, I am happy to acknowledge that, while all of this is still just something we are all figuring out, Fauci has a far greater understanding, and his guess is probably a lot more informed, than some who thinks bankrupting companies and passing a test that shows his brain hasn't shut down gives him some miraculous insight into infectious disease.

---

Respect for his expertise?

You mean like how many demanded he be named "sexiest man alive"?

Or the scores of people with signs declaring thy want to fellate him?

Or his endless interviews on talk shows and all the softball questions they ask him? Has anyone ever asked him about all the times he's been wrong and asked him to explain himself ? No.

---

No, his expertise on contagious disease.

Did you misread my statement that he has over 50 years of working on infectious disease to mean I was relying on other people's demand on being named "sexiest man alive"? In determining whether he is an expert, why do you care about whether some women find him sexy?

Do you believe that him leading our country on infectious disease, including AIDS, make him an expert? Or do you feel like because women find him attractive that you can no longer rely on his 50 years of experience and would rather listen to someone who wants to see if we can inject Lysol?

Don't see your logic or your anger that he is popular. I don't care that he is popular. I care that he is an expert based on years of experience and the work he has done in the past on other infectious disease for our country.

I may have missed it but are people thinking he is an expert because he is popular or is he popular because when we have a president who thrives in giving overtly idiotic advise Fauci is someone who is intelligent and provides his most reasoned estimates and guidance?

---

He has led our country's response during COVID and he has failed. Failed spectacularly. Strange you wouldn't know this from the media love.

---

No, he has not led our country's response. He has no power to make policy. The people who have failed are those who actually make the laws and make the policy, like Trump. Please show me where in our constitution or our statute that gives Fauci the ability to overrule Trump or any governor. He gave guidance and we have some who ignore it and others who thought his best guess was a scientific fact. The actual leaders are the ones who have failed. The idiotic people who won't wear masks are the ones who failed. If anything, I place the least amount of blame on Fauci while acknowledging that he is human and that he is still evolving his understanding of this like the rest of the world.

calbear93 said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

I have long pondered why some in America worship this false idol, this Golden Calf, named Fauci.

People in fear need a God to worship. When Moses left the Israelites they worshipped the Golden Calf. Now liberals, who have been abandoned by their previous God, Barack Hussein Obama, need to create another God who will comfort them and provide their weak minds with security and comfort. I understand the need for comfort and assurance when living in fear. But it does not change the truth that Fauci is your false God.

---

Acknowledging someone's expertise and contribution and giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who has earned credibility is not worship.

Worship is what the mutated party that used to be my party does when pandering to a clear idiot like Trump.

I do not worship Fauci, but I am humble enough to acknowledge that someone who has worked on infectious disease for over 50 years probably knows more than someone who looked up some internet article by some yahoo and feels like they now know more than an expert like Fauci.

And while I do object to some idiot politicians on the left who don't understand the scientific process and think the latest theory is law justifying shutting down debate and shutting down the country, I am happy to acknowledge that, while all of this is still just something we are all figuring out, Fauci has a far greater understanding, and his guess is probably a lot more informed, than some who thinks bankrupting companies and passing a test that shows his brain hasn't shut down gives him some miraculous insight into infectious disease.

---

Respect for his expertise?

You mean like how many demanded he be named "sexiest man alive"?

Or the scores of people with signs declaring thy want to fellate him?

Or his endless interviews on talk shows and all the softball questions they ask him? Has anyone ever asked him about all the times he's been wrong and asked him to explain himself ? No.

---

No, his expertise on contagious disease.

Did you misread my statement that he has over 50 years of working on infectious disease to mean I was relying on other people's demand on being named "sexiest man alive"? In determining whether he is an expert, why do you care about whether some women find him sexy?

Do you believe that him leading our country on infectious disease, including AIDS, make him an expert? Or do you feel like because women find him attractive that you can no longer rely on his 50 years of experience and would rather listen to someone who wants to see if we can inject Lysol?

Don't see your logic or your anger that he is popular. I don't care that he is popular. I care that he is an expert based on years of experience and the work he has done in the past on other infectious disease for our country.

I may have missed it but are people thinking he is an expert because he is popular or is he popular because when we have a president who thrives in giving overtly idiotic advise Fauci is someone who is intelligent and provides his most reasoned estimates and guidance?

---

He has led our country's response during COVID and he has failed. Failed spectacularly. Strange you wouldn't know this from the media love.

---

No, he has not led our country's response. He has no power to make policy. The people who have failed are those who actually make the laws and make the policy, like Trump. Please show me where in our constitution or our statute that gives Fauci the ability to overrule Trump or any governor.

---

His job is to advise and influence policy. He has failed. Failed spectacularly.

hanky1 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

I have long pondered why some in America worship this false idol, this Golden Calf, named Fauci.

People in fear need a God to worship. When Moses left the Israelites they worshipped the Golden Calf. Now liberals, who have been abandoned by their previous God, Barack Hussein Obama, need to create another God who will comfort them and provide their weak minds with security and comfort. I understand the need for comfort and assurance when living in fear. But it does not change the truth that Fauci is your false God.

---

Acknowledging someone's expertise and contribution and giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who has earned credibility is not worship.

Worship is what the mutated party that used to be my party does when pandering to a clear idiot like Trump.

I do not worship Fauci, but I am humble enough to acknowledge that someone who has worked on infectious disease for over 50 years probably knows more than someone who looked up some internet article by some yahoo and feels like they now know more than an expert like Fauci.

And while I do object to some idiot politicians on the left who don't understand the scientific process and think the latest theory is law justifying shutting down debate and shutting down the country, I am happy to acknowledge that, while all of this is still just something we are all figuring out, Fauci has a far greater understanding, and his guess is probably a lot more informed, than some who thinks bankrupting companies and passing a test that shows his brain hasn't shut down gives him some miraculous insight into infectious disease.

---

Respect for his expertise?

You mean like how many demanded he be named "sexiest man alive"?

Or the scores of people with signs declaring thy want to fellate him?

Or his endless interviews on talk shows and all the softball questions they ask him? Has anyone ever asked him about all the times he's been wrong and asked him to explain himself ? No.

---

No, his expertise on contagious disease.

Did you misread my statement that he has over 50 years of working on infectious disease to mean I was relying on other people's demand on being named "sexiest man alive"? In determining whether he is an expert, why do you care about whether some women find him sexy?

Do you believe that him leading our country on infectious disease, including AIDS, make him an expert? Or do you feel like because women find him attractive that you can no longer rely on his 50 years of experience and would rather listen to someone who wants to see if we can inject Lysol?

Don't see your logic or your anger that he is popular. I don't care that he is popular. I care that he is an expert based on years of experience and the work he has done in the past on other infectious disease for our country.

I may have missed it but are people thinking he is an expert because he is popular or is he popular because when we have a president who thrives in giving overtly idiotic advise Fauci is someone who is intelligent and provides his most reasoned estimates and guidance?

---

He has led our country's response during COVID and he has failed. Failed spectacularly. Strange you wouldn't know this from the media love.

---

No, he has not led our country's response. He has no power to make policy. The people who have failed are those who actually make the laws and make the policy, like Trump. Please show me where in our constitution or our statute that gives Fauci the ability to overrule Trump or any governor.

---

His job is to advise and influence policy. He has failed. Failed spectacularly.

---

No the people who have failed are those who think they know more than him and chose not to listen to him. It's people like the COVID-19 deniers, president who said it is just a flu and that it will miraculously disappear, those who flame conspiracy for who knows why and risking other people's lives. Those people failed. Fauci did not fail. He did what he was supposed to do. Take the most recent and latest data and apply his past experience and knowledge. I am sure he wishes he had the kind of power you are implying he has. But if Trump ignores him, he has no power to override Trump or the governor of Florida.

Cal88 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Big C said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Big C said:

---

There ARE some reputable people -- I'm not talking about Trump -- throughout the world who claim it is effective against COVID-19. One of the arguments as to why it is having the kibosh put on it here is that it is cheap and plentiful and therefore Big Pharma won't be making big moolah on it.

Note that I'm not saying that there is a preponderance of evidence that it works, just that there is a decent chance. It'll be interesting, a few years down the road, to see how all this turns out. (Plus, I'll be able to go out for beers again and not have to wear a stupid mask every time I leave the house.)

---

Really? You cannot give any weight to any conspiracy theory that some in the government are gravely getting us into a recession, huge deficit, material weakening of the dollar and all those death without anyone doing an expose because they want to help pharma like Pfizer that until TCJA was going to become an Irish company, can you? I mean, that would be like spending the rest their lives in prison and they and their family living in eternal ignominy. What would be the motivation? Some campaign funding?

---

If Big Pharma is putting the kibosh on it -- I'm not saying they are, just that there's a chance -- it would be more subtle than that. Big money often does influence the practice of medicine in this country.

The if-you-like-HCLQ-you-must-like-Trump factor also could play in. And, of course, it might just be that it doesn't work (the most likely scenario). If I had COVID, though, and there was nothing else to take, I might take it under a doctor's supervision.

---

That would violate Anti-Kickback and False Claims Act if Big Pharma influenced doctors in such an obvious way (especially doctors who bill Medicare), and those contributions could be apparent in disclosure required by the Sunshine Act. I understand that there are still some subtle influences on peddling their medicine, but I doubt it would get to the level of suppressing a potential cure for COVID-19.

---

There is nothing subtle about the PR and advertising budget of big pharma, which IIRC amounts to $30 billion per year in the US alone.

---

You are talking about two different things.

Pharma advertising its product is different from using monetary or other value transfer to influence medical providers who also bill Medicare. The first is legal as long as not false and as long the intended use is cleared through pre-marketing notification with the FDA. The second is a criminal violation. So, the implication that big Pharma is using their money to cause medical providers to provide false medical study to suppress a legitimate treatment or cure for COVID-19 is hard to believe.

---

Here is the precise annual breakdown of Big Pharma's advertizing and PR/influence peddling budget:

Quote:

---

Of the nearly $30 billion that health companies now spend on medical marketing each year, around 68 percent (or about $20 billion) goes to persuading doctors and other medical professionals not consumers of the benefits of prescription drugs. That's according to an in-depth analysis published in JAMA this week. Jan 11, 2019

Big Pharma shells out $20B each year to schmooze docs, $6B on drug ads
Persuading doctors and direct-to-consumer ads land 1-2 punch for knockout sales.

---

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/01/healthcare-industry-spends-30b-on-marketing-most-of-it-goes-to-doctors/

If you don't think that the $20 billion spent annually by big firms like Gilead in seminars, junkets and other PR activities to push drugs like Remdisivir, or gain a very strong influence over the medical establishment, you might be a bit naive.

Consider that back in early Spring on the day Dr. Raoult first announced his success using HCQ, Gilead 's valuation lost nearly $10 billion. The stakes are very high here... Gilead's treatment costs over $3,000 per patient, while HCQ is roughly 1,000 times cheaper.

Big Pharma is the leading advertiser on TV programs and the MSM, which has repercussions over the content it provides. The MSM and television is still a force that shapes the worldviews of its main target group of affluent Boomers. That segment, especially those in Blue cities, tends to have very high trust in their institutions and will most often reject out of hand basic evidence going against their narrative, it's a basic case of cognitive dissonance.


Stepping back a bit, a good start on the argument about HCQ should focus on its side effects, because if you still believe that this is a dangerous drug, then there is no point whatsoever in going any further. How you perceive the risks of HCQ is an excellent bellwether of your level of credulity and blind trust in the MSM and medical establishment.

---

Cal88, I have represented some of the biggest Pharma companies, and I am fully aware of the internal compliance matters related to Anti-Kickback Statutes and False Claims Act, and barriers they implement to ensure that they are in compliance as well as self-regulating entities like AdvaMed. They also need to disclose any payments made to any healthcare providers under the Sunshine Act. Where are the payments to Harvard Medical School that would cause them to distort and suppress actual results?

I think you are confusing the original implication of illegal (and quite criminal and not just civil) influence on healthcare providers like Harvard Medical School and the doctors there to legitimate marketing of their products to the public and doctors (which they can only do upon filing a pre-market notification and only on the intended use approved by the FDA following different phases of clinical trials). Some of my close friends are senior executives at Pharma companies, and I don't think you really know what you are talking about.

---

I think much of the $20 billion spent annually by big pharma to influence the medical establishment will fall in a grey zone, I'm not naive enough to believe that this spending on PR activities aimed at the medical establishment does not have an impact on big pharma's bottom line, or does not result in situations of conflict of interest given the shear volume spent here.

The industry is also the largest lobbyist with an annual budget of nearly $300 million, this along with the revolving door policy in regulatory bodies like the FDA and CDC goes a long way into determining the norms behind Anti-Kickback Statutes and False Claims Act.

Quote:

---

...So, no, I don't believe Pharma companies are spending money to get places like Harvard Medical School to suppress actual results on HCQ and have people die while there is a legitimate cure available.

---

I think it's a bit naive to think that big pharma, which funds most research at Harvard and other universities, doesn't use this financial lever to their advantage. Here is a quick search on the situation in Canada, where the regulatory landscape is more stringent than in the US:

Quote:

---

In a study published in PloS One, we examined the conflict of interest (COI) policies at all 17 medical schools across the country. Our findings reveal a glaring problem, and something that should concern all of us. The majority of medical schools (12 of 17) have generally weak or non-existent COI policies, and four schools had policies that were moderately restrictive. Only one medical school Western University had stringent COI rules.

In other words, the bulk of our doctors-in-training in Canada are receiving health information that is potentially biased and misleading.

Here's a telling example: Between 2002 and 2006, the University of Toronto held a pain-management course for medical and other health science professional students that was partly funded by grants from Purdue Pharma LP, the maker of OxyContin. As part of the course, a chronic pain-management book funded and copyrighted by Purdue Pharma was distributed to the students free of charge by a lecturer who worked in partnership with Purdue Pharma and was external to University of Toronto. The wording in the book exaggerated both the benefits and the approved uses for these medications, based on the current evidence at that time. Despite recognition of these concerns by the university after a student complained, those who attended the sessions were never informed of the bias or the problematic content of the lectures and book (which was used in a related course up to 2010).

The most poorly regulated areas noted in our study include curriculum selection, receiving free drug samples, visits from pharmaceutical sales representatives and taking part in speaking engagements on behalf of pharmaceutical companies.

Bottom line: Unrestrictive policies allow industry to influence medical residents' education about appropriate, effective and safe medicines, as well as prescribing choices.

---

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/our-medical-schools-must-not-become-shills-for-big-pharma/article13188578/



And Stateside, from a study published in JAMA:

Quote:

---

Almost every major U.S.-based pharmaceutical company in 2012and nearly 40 percent worldwidehad at least one board member in a leadership position from a U.S. academic medical center, raising potentially problematic conflict-of-interest questions. The board members were compensated an average of $312,564 by the pharmaceutical companies, while concurrently holding clinical or administrative leadership positions at academic medical centers.

---

The study's senior author, Welld Gallad, MD, MPH points out:

Quote:

---

[P]harmaceutical industry board membership by academic medical center leaders could lead to a different kind of potential conflict of interest, since academic leaders wield considerably more influence over research, clinical and educational missions than ordinary physicians or staff who may be targeted for gifts by pharmaceutical representatives.

---

Dr. Gallad adds:

Quote:

---

The public will have to decide whether these non-profit, and in many cases publicly funded, academic institutions can manage these potential conflicts with internal policies, or whether additional regulation is needed.

---

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1853147

---

Have you ever worked for, or represented, a pharma company, been hired by the Board to investigate a DOJ investigation, etc? If you have actually worked on compliance matters or investigation related to Anti-Kickback Statute or False Claims Act and are speaking from actual experience on the safeguards implemented by pharma companies and not basing it on some google search, let me know. I have actually worked on investigation ordered by the board, suggesting safeguards. I know friends who are in senior legal roles at medical device and pharma companies. I have represented many companies who are subject to anti-kickback statute. Please excuse me if my actual experience working on these matters override your conspiracy theories.

calbear93 said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

I have long pondered why some in America worship this false idol, this Golden Calf, named Fauci.

People in fear need a God to worship. When Moses left the Israelites they worshipped the Golden Calf. Now liberals, who have been abandoned by their previous God, Barack Hussein Obama, need to create another God who will comfort them and provide their weak minds with security and comfort. I understand the need for comfort and assurance when living in fear. But it does not change the truth that Fauci is your false God.

---

Acknowledging someone's expertise and contribution and giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who has earned credibility is not worship.

Worship is what the mutated party that used to be my party does when pandering to a clear idiot like Trump.

I do not worship Fauci, but I am humble enough to acknowledge that someone who has worked on infectious disease for over 50 years probably knows more than someone who looked up some internet article by some yahoo and feels like they now know more than an expert like Fauci.

And while I do object to some idiot politicians on the left who don't understand the scientific process and think the latest theory is law justifying shutting down debate and shutting down the country, I am happy to acknowledge that, while all of this is still just something we are all figuring out, Fauci has a far greater understanding, and his guess is probably a lot more informed, than some who thinks bankrupting companies and passing a test that shows his brain hasn't shut down gives him some miraculous insight into infectious disease.

---

Respect for his expertise?

You mean like how many demanded he be named "sexiest man alive"?

Or the scores of people with signs declaring thy want to fellate him?

Or his endless interviews on talk shows and all the softball questions they ask him? Has anyone ever asked him about all the times he's been wrong and asked him to explain himself ? No.

---

No, his expertise on contagious disease.

Did you misread my statement that he has over 50 years of working on infectious disease to mean I was relying on other people's demand on being named "sexiest man alive"? In determining whether he is an expert, why do you care about whether some women find him sexy?

Do you believe that him leading our country on infectious disease, including AIDS, make him an expert? Or do you feel like because women find him attractive that you can no longer rely on his 50 years of experience and would rather listen to someone who wants to see if we can inject Lysol?

Don't see your logic or your anger that he is popular. I don't care that he is popular. I care that he is an expert based on years of experience and the work he has done in the past on other infectious disease for our country.

I may have missed it but are people thinking he is an expert because he is popular or is he popular because when we have a president who thrives in giving overtly idiotic advise Fauci is someone who is intelligent and provides his most reasoned estimates and guidance?

---

He has led our country's response during COVID and he has failed. Failed spectacularly. Strange you wouldn't know this from the media love.

---

No, he has not led our country's response. He has no power to make policy. The people who have failed are those who actually make the laws and make the policy, like Trump. Please show me where in our constitution or our statute that gives Fauci the ability to overrule Trump or any governor.

---

His job is to advise and influence policy. He has failed. Failed spectacularly.

---

No the people who have failed are those who think they know more than him and chose not to listen to him. It's people like the COVID-19 deniers, president who said it is just a flu and that it will miraculously disappear, those who flame conspiracy for who knows why and risking other people's lives. Those people failed. Fauci did not fail. He did what he was supposed to do. Take the most recent and latest data and apply his past experience and knowledge. I am sure he wishes he had the kind of power you are implying he has. But if Trump ignores him, he has no power to override Trump or the governor of Florida.

---

If an adviser is not listened to by his superiors than that advisor is useless. He failed. Failed spectacularly.

Cal88 said:

---

1- The epidemic will subside in the US, the same way it did in Europe

---

Other fantastically useful highly specific prophesy:

It will get colder this winter just like it did last winter.

Cal will win a lot of football games at some point like they did one time before.

Sneezing will magically subside, when there is less allergens in the air.

Someday you will die just like every other human.


The question is WHEN will it subside and by what meaningful mechanism that we can influence with policy? How does your "prediction" mean anything at all or in some way explain away other predictions you made that were flat out wrong?

This is the exact equivalent of Trump's "Someday I will be right and this virus will miraculously disappear." Someday is not a timeframe and it won't be a miracle.

Your posts read like someone predicting during Big Game week that we will beat Stanfurd, and then when we lose saying, "Someday I will be right and we will beat Stanfurd." Whatever.

Cal88 said:

---

I don't post as often as I did because of the amount of vitriol and acrimony prevailing on this board. All these topics have become highly partisan, the level of hostility from posters like Calpoly here above is completely irrational and downright cult-like.

There is still enough value here because there are many posters who will consider a dissenting opinion or if it's well-supported. My perspective is gained from sources and experiences that are not as accessible or reflected in the media.

I might be wrong on some issues, but I think I am right here, and time will prove me right on the main topics here, which are:

1- The epidemic will subside in the US, the same way it did in Europe

2- HCQ works

3- HCQ is a benign drug, whose side effects have been grossly exaggerated by the MSM and American (and some European) medical establishments.

---

It is interesting that in your mind science is a cult. Hmmm, who also has similar sentiments? Maybe the occupier of the White House?

You guys just have to open your mind but only to data that Cal88 cherrypicks and that confirms his current beliefs. You should ignore all other data like he does because that's what being openminded dictates.

I will be charitable and say that I think Cal88 is a contrarian. He's obviously intelligent and knows how to cherrypick to make a convincing argument but his basis seems to be rooted in contrarianism. When people ignored COVID in January/February he went the opposite way and predicted doom and gloom. When it turns out he was right, he went contrarian again and said it was all overblown.

I don't think Cal88 is always wrong, I just think he starts with a contrarian conclusion as opposed to leading with the data. As we've seen (like with the WH cubic model and Cal88's June predictions), it can lead to pretty boneheaded results.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

You don't have a reasonable basis for your claims. You're just cherry picking and curve fitting.

You said that the number of new cases is decoupled from deaths which is preposterous. They are absolutely coupled - with a lag between the two because death happens weeks after infection.

...

---

Even if you account for the lag between death and new case diagnosis, which is around 2-3 weeks, the new case curve has decoupled from the new death cases, overshooting it by a factor of 4+:



Cases have doubled from their April-May high plateau, while the new death rates are not even half those form the high April-May death plateaus. This is an undeniable basic fact, you have to be blind or a complete hack to keep claiming the opposite.

If the new cases and new deaths have not decoupled, as you claim, you would expect new deaths in August to reach a daily average of 3,500-4,000, which is never going to happen.


In Europe, the number of new cases in the EU has been rising steadily in the last 2 months about double what it was in early june while the number of new deaths is less than one third, a decoupling by a factor of 6x between new cases and deaths:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-covid-deaths-3-day-average?country=~European%20Union

You can't claim that the decoupling between the new case curve and the new death curve hasn't been taking place, it's a ridiculous assertion, even if you account for the 2-3 week lag between the diagnosis of new cases and the reporting of new deaths. No amount of prose, ad hominem attacks is going to get you over this basic fact.

hanky1 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

I have long pondered why some in America worship this false idol, this Golden Calf, named Fauci.

People in fear need a God to worship. When Moses left the Israelites they worshipped the Golden Calf. Now liberals, who have been abandoned by their previous God, Barack Hussein Obama, need to create another God who will comfort them and provide their weak minds with security and comfort. I understand the need for comfort and assurance when living in fear. But it does not change the truth that Fauci is your false God.

---

Acknowledging someone's expertise and contribution and giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who has earned credibility is not worship.

Worship is what the mutated party that used to be my party does when pandering to a clear idiot like Trump.

I do not worship Fauci, but I am humble enough to acknowledge that someone who has worked on infectious disease for over 50 years probably knows more than someone who looked up some internet article by some yahoo and feels like they now know more than an expert like Fauci.

And while I do object to some idiot politicians on the left who don't understand the scientific process and think the latest theory is law justifying shutting down debate and shutting down the country, I am happy to acknowledge that, while all of this is still just something we are all figuring out, Fauci has a far greater understanding, and his guess is probably a lot more informed, than some who thinks bankrupting companies and passing a test that shows his brain hasn't shut down gives him some miraculous insight into infectious disease.

---

Respect for his expertise?

You mean like how many demanded he be named "sexiest man alive"?

Or the scores of people with signs declaring thy want to fellate him?

Or his endless interviews on talk shows and all the softball questions they ask him? Has anyone ever asked him about all the times he's been wrong and asked him to explain himself ? No.

---

No, his expertise on contagious disease.

Did you misread my statement that he has over 50 years of working on infectious disease to mean I was relying on other people's demand on being named "sexiest man alive"? In determining whether he is an expert, why do you care about whether some women find him sexy?

Do you believe that him leading our country on infectious disease, including AIDS, make him an expert? Or do you feel like because women find him attractive that you can no longer rely on his 50 years of experience and would rather listen to someone who wants to see if we can inject Lysol?

Don't see your logic or your anger that he is popular. I don't care that he is popular. I care that he is an expert based on years of experience and the work he has done in the past on other infectious disease for our country.

I may have missed it but are people thinking he is an expert because he is popular or is he popular because when we have a president who thrives in giving overtly idiotic advise Fauci is someone who is intelligent and provides his most reasoned estimates and guidance?

---

He has led our country's response during COVID and he has failed. Failed spectacularly. Strange you wouldn't know this from the media love.

---

No, he has not led our country's response. He has no power to make policy. The people who have failed are those who actually make the laws and make the policy, like Trump. Please show me where in our constitution or our statute that gives Fauci the ability to overrule Trump or any governor.

---

His job is to advise and influence policy. He has failed. Failed spectacularly.

---

No the people who have failed are those who think they know more than him and chose not to listen to him. It's people like the COVID-19 deniers, president who said it is just a flu and that it will miraculously disappear, those who flame conspiracy for who knows why and risking other people's lives. Those people failed. Fauci did not fail. He did what he was supposed to do. Take the most recent and latest data and apply his past experience and knowledge. I am sure he wishes he had the kind of power you are implying he has. But if Trump ignores him, he has no power to override Trump or the governor of Florida.

---

If an adviser is not listened to by his superiors than that advisor is useless. He failed. Failed spectacularly.

---

Or considering that all other Presidents listened to Fauci, that the current president refuses to listen to anyone who does not already parrot what he says, and that other smart people chose to leave because Trump won't listen, maybe it's Trump and not Fauci? Just guessing here.

calbear93 said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

I have long pondered why some in America worship this false idol, this Golden Calf, named Fauci.

People in fear need a God to worship. When Moses left the Israelites they worshipped the Golden Calf. Now liberals, who have been abandoned by their previous God, Barack Hussein Obama, need to create another God who will comfort them and provide their weak minds with security and comfort. I understand the need for comfort and assurance when living in fear. But it does not change the truth that Fauci is your false God.

---

Acknowledging someone's expertise and contribution and giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who has earned credibility is not worship.

Worship is what the mutated party that used to be my party does when pandering to a clear idiot like Trump.

I do not worship Fauci, but I am humble enough to acknowledge that someone who has worked on infectious disease for over 50 years probably knows more than someone who looked up some internet article by some yahoo and feels like they now know more than an expert like Fauci.

And while I do object to some idiot politicians on the left who don't understand the scientific process and think the latest theory is law justifying shutting down debate and shutting down the country, I am happy to acknowledge that, while all of this is still just something we are all figuring out, Fauci has a far greater understanding, and his guess is probably a lot more informed, than some who thinks bankrupting companies and passing a test that shows his brain hasn't shut down gives him some miraculous insight into infectious disease.

---

Respect for his expertise?

You mean like how many demanded he be named "sexiest man alive"?

Or the scores of people with signs declaring thy want to fellate him?

Or his endless interviews on talk shows and all the softball questions they ask him? Has anyone ever asked him about all the times he's been wrong and asked him to explain himself ? No.

---

No, his expertise on contagious disease.

Did you misread my statement that he has over 50 years of working on infectious disease to mean I was relying on other people's demand on being named "sexiest man alive"? In determining whether he is an expert, why do you care about whether some women find him sexy?

Do you believe that him leading our country on infectious disease, including AIDS, make him an expert? Or do you feel like because women find him attractive that you can no longer rely on his 50 years of experience and would rather listen to someone who wants to see if we can inject Lysol?

Don't see your logic or your anger that he is popular. I don't care that he is popular. I care that he is an expert based on years of experience and the work he has done in the past on other infectious disease for our country.

I may have missed it but are people thinking he is an expert because he is popular or is he popular because when we have a president who thrives in giving overtly idiotic advise Fauci is someone who is intelligent and provides his most reasoned estimates and guidance?

---

He has led our country's response during COVID and he has failed. Failed spectacularly. Strange you wouldn't know this from the media love.

---

No, he has not led our country's response. He has no power to make policy. The people who have failed are those who actually make the laws and make the policy, like Trump. Please show me where in our constitution or our statute that gives Fauci the ability to overrule Trump or any governor.

---

His job is to advise and influence policy. He has failed. Failed spectacularly.

---

No the people who have failed are those who think they know more than him and chose not to listen to him. It's people like the COVID-19 deniers, president who said it is just a flu and that it will miraculously disappear, those who flame conspiracy for who knows why and risking other people's lives. Those people failed. Fauci did not fail. He did what he was supposed to do. Take the most recent and latest data and apply his past experience and knowledge. I am sure he wishes he had the kind of power you are implying he has. But if Trump ignores him, he has no power to override Trump or the governor of Florida.

---

If an adviser is not listened to by his superiors than that advisor is useless. He failed. Failed spectacularly.

---

Or considering that all other Presidents listened to Fauci, that the current president refuses to listen to anyone who does not already parrot what he says, and that other smart people chose to leave because Trump won't listen, maybe it's Trump and not Fauci? Just guessing here.

---

Deductive reasoning and logic have no place in modern America.

hanky1 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

I have long pondered why some in America worship this false idol, this Golden Calf, named Fauci.

People in fear need a God to worship. When Moses left the Israelites they worshipped the Golden Calf. Now liberals, who have been abandoned by their previous God, Barack Hussein Obama, need to create another God who will comfort them and provide their weak minds with security and comfort. I understand the need for comfort and assurance when living in fear. But it does not change the truth that Fauci is your false God.

---

Acknowledging someone's expertise and contribution and giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who has earned credibility is not worship.

Worship is what the mutated party that used to be my party does when pandering to a clear idiot like Trump.

I do not worship Fauci, but I am humble enough to acknowledge that someone who has worked on infectious disease for over 50 years probably knows more than someone who looked up some internet article by some yahoo and feels like they now know more than an expert like Fauci.

And while I do object to some idiot politicians on the left who don't understand the scientific process and think the latest theory is law justifying shutting down debate and shutting down the country, I am happy to acknowledge that, while all of this is still just something we are all figuring out, Fauci has a far greater understanding, and his guess is probably a lot more informed, than some who thinks bankrupting companies and passing a test that shows his brain hasn't shut down gives him some miraculous insight into infectious disease.

---

Respect for his expertise?

You mean like how many demanded he be named "sexiest man alive"?

Or the scores of people with signs declaring thy want to fellate him?

Or his endless interviews on talk shows and all the softball questions they ask him? Has anyone ever asked him about all the times he's been wrong and asked him to explain himself ? No.

---

Why would you begrudge a man who has become a sex symbol at 79 years-old? Apparently women think he's the full package sans the baseball athleticism.

calbear93 said:

---

Have you ever worked for, or represented, a pharma company, been hired by the Board to investigate a DOJ investigation, etc? If you have actually worked on compliance matters or investigation related to Anti-Kickback Statute or False Claims Act and are speaking from actual experience on the safeguards implemented by pharma companies and not basing it on some google search, let me know. I have actually worked on investigation ordered by the board, suggesting safeguards. I know friends who are in senior legal roles at medical device and pharma companies. I have represented many companies who are subject to anti-kickback statute. Please excuse me if my actual experience working on these matters override your conspiracy theories.

---

If those companies are part of your client base, your income, and your circle of friends, might that not affect your perspective on the matter?

The material I've furnished outlining clear conflict of interest in the industry is not "conspiracy theory", it is the work of unbiased researchers, published in respected journals.

The basic industry marketing practices that were clearly outlined in the JAMA articles I've posted above amount to kickbacks. Those practices aren't going to be shut down by the DOJ or the regulatory agencies, or banned by the Board of these companies, as you seem to suggest, they've been ensconced as business practices and are part of the landscape.

The recent findings on the MO of firms like Purdue Pharmaceuticals illustrate the kind of influence peddling and practices that make up their marketing schemes:

Quote:

---

The new filing also reveals how Purdue aggressively pursued tight relationships with Tufts University's Health Sciences Campus and Massachusetts General Hospital two of the state's premier academic medical centers to expand prescribing by physicians, generate goodwill toward opioid painkillers among medical students and doctors in training, and combat negative reports about opioid addiction.

---

https://www.statnews.com/2019/01/15/massachusetts-purdue-lawsuit-new-details/

They've also exerted their financial influence over professional associations, academia and media outlets to shape the medical establishment and bypass/neutralize the regulatory process:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/opioid-marketing/

Cal88 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

You don't have a reasonable basis for your claims. You're just cherry picking and curve fitting.

You said that the number of new cases is decoupled from deaths which is preposterous. They are absolutely coupled - with a lag between the two because death happens weeks after infection.

...

---

Even if you account for the lag between death and new case diagnosis, which is around 2-3 weeks, the new case curve has decoupled from the new death cases, overshooting it by a factor of 4+:



Cases have doubled from their April-May high plateau, while the new death rates are not even half those form the high April-May death plateaus. This is an undeniable basic fact, you have to be blind or a complete hack to keep claiming the opposite.

If the new cases and new deaths have not decoupled, as you claim, you would expect new deaths in August to reach a daily average of 3,500-4,000, which is never going to happen.


In Europe, the number of new cases in the EU has been rising steadily in the last 2 months about double what it was in early june while the number of new deaths is less than one third, a decoupling by a factor of 6x between new cases and deaths:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-covid-deaths-3-day-average?country=~European%20Union

You can't claim that the decoupling between the new case curve and the new death curve hasn't been taking place, it's a ridiculous assertion, even if you account for the 2-3 week lag between the diagnosis of new cases and the reporting of new deaths. No amount of prose, ad hominem attacks is going to get you over this basic fact.

---

Even for you this is a remarkably disingenuous response. You always act as if the data is about to change in your favor despite the fact that you have been wrong so very many times.

Your attribution of a strawman to me is risible. You said that deaths and infections have become decoupled which means that there is no relation. I've claimed that there is a relationship, not that the relationship will remain constant over time (eg the multiplier will not remain constant). As I've noted, the mix has shifted younger (which drives the death rate lower) and that we have improved treatments which further reduce the rate. Nonetheless, some portion of the infected will die weeks after they become infected. Also, the lag will vary over time depending on how early in the infection cycle we are diagnosing people. I would expect we've cut the death rate by at least half if not more, but that it will still be proportional to infected.

I would also be remiss if I didn't point out that once again you have posted highly misleading cherrypicked data. The COVID tracking project chart you posted above unsurprisingly doesn't include recent data which shows the large increase in deaths. The daily death rate in the US has more than doubled from its lows earlier this month and is still on the upswing.


I can't predict with any certainty what the new daily death rate will top out at but I have no reason to believe that it will be anywhere close to 4k. The fact that we are at 1400+ deaths today, based on the data source you've selected, is a grim fact. We last hit that level of death on mid-May and never should have returned to it.

Here's an updated image which you could have posted but didn't because it doesn't back your argument:

Quote:

---

No amount of prose, ad hominem attacks is going to get you over this basic fact.

---

There is no shortage of irony in you constantly using disinformation to support your wild ideas and then claiming as if you have basic facts on your side.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

You don't have a reasonable basis for your claims. You're just cherry picking and curve fitting.

You said that the number of new cases is decoupled from deaths which is preposterous. They are absolutely coupled - with a lag between the two because death happens weeks after infection.

...

---

Even if you account for the lag between death and new case diagnosis, which is around 2-3 weeks, the new case curve has decoupled from the new death cases, overshooting it by a factor of 4+:



Cases have doubled from their April-May high plateau, while the new death rates are not even half those form the high April-May death plateaus. This is an undeniable basic fact, you have to be blind or a complete hack to keep claiming the opposite.

If the new cases and new deaths have not decoupled, as you claim, you would expect new deaths in August to reach a daily average of 3,500-4,000, which is never going to happen.


In Europe, the number of new cases in the EU has been rising steadily in the last 2 months about double what it was in early june while the number of new deaths is less than one third, a decoupling by a factor of 6x between new cases and deaths:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-covid-deaths-3-day-average?country=~European%20Union

You can't claim that the decoupling between the new case curve and the new death curve hasn't been taking place, it's a ridiculous assertion, even if you account for the 2-3 week lag between the diagnosis of new cases and the reporting of new deaths. No amount of prose, ad hominem attacks is going to get you over this basic fact.

---

Even for you this is a remarkably disingenuous response. You always act as if the data is about to change in your favor despite the fact that you have been wrong so very many times.

Your attribution of a strawman to me is risible. You said that deaths and infections have become decoupled which means that there is no relation. I've claimed that there is a relationship, not that the relationship will remain constant over time (eg the multiplier will not remain constant). As I've noted, the mix has shifted younger (which drives the death rate lower) and that we have improved treatments which further reduce the rate. Nonetheless, some portion of the infected will die weeks after they become infected. Also, the lag will vary over time depending on how early in the infection cycle we are diagnosing people. I would expect we've cut the death rate by at least half if not more, but that it will still be proportional to infected.

I would also be remiss if I didn't point out that once again you have posted highly misleading cherrypicked data. The COVID tracking project chart you posted above unsurprisingly doesn't include recent data which shows the large increase in deaths. The daily death rate in the US has more than doubled from its lows earlier this month and is still on the upswing.


I can't predict with any certainty what the new daily death rate will top out at but I have no reason to believe that it will be anywhere close to 4k. The fact that we are at 1400+ deaths today, based on the data source you've selected, is a grim fact. We last hit that level of death on mid-May and never should have returned to it.

Here's an updated image which you could have posted but didn't because it doesn't back your argument:


G

Quote:

---

No amount of prose, ad hominem attacks is going to get you over this basic fact.

---

There is no shortage of irony in you constantly using disinformation to support your wild ideas and then claiming as if you have basic facts on your side.

---

I agree with U2S. Using charts that end about 3 weeks ago is pretty misleading. Also, presenting a chart with a 0-50000 scale next to one with a 0-2000 scale is hard to interpret accurately. Use the deaths chart scale on the cases chart and the cases curve would be climbing at a staggering slope. Even so, Cal88's charts show cases as doubling from early June to early July and U2S's more current deaths chart shows deaths up 80% and still rising.

calbear93, your efforts are appreciated. However, as you may have already gathered, hanky1 is always disingenuous. He is a troll.

chazzed said:

---

calbear93, your efforts are appreciated. However, as you may have already gathered, hanky1 is always disingenuous. He is a troll.

---

There are bad trolls and then there are good trolls.

We're all trolls. Let's be honest. This isn't some kind of colloquium of Very Serious People. Hanky at least adds amusement.

This board has PICKED UP a little bit, with the return of Cal88!

Anarchistbear said:

---

We're all trolls. Let's be honest. This isn't some kind of colloquium of Very Serious People. Hanky at least adds amusement.

---

Never thought of a hanky as a troll just like I don't think of Yogi as a troll. They are funny agitators.

Anarchistbear said:

---

We're all trolls. Let's be honest. This isn't some kind of colloquium of Very Serious People. Hanky at least adds amusement.

---

Oh, they think they're very serious.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Your attribution of a strawman to me is risible. You said that deaths and infections have become decoupled which means that there is no relation. I've claimed that there is a relationship, not that the relationship will remain constant over time (eg the multiplier will not remain constant). As I've noted, the mix has shifted younger (which drives the death rate lower) and that we have improved treatments which further reduce the rate. Nonetheless, some portion of the infected will die weeks after they become infected. Also, the lag will vary over time depending on how early in the infection cycle we are diagnosing people. I would expect we've cut the death rate by at least half if not more, but that it will still be proportional to infected.

---

"It will still be proportional to infected"

The ratio has decreased by a factor of 4. I've actually quantified the level of decoupling between the number of new cases and the new deaths, here is what I've said above: the new case curve has decoupled from the new death cases, overshooting it by a factor of 4+:"

We have today is:

-deaths rising, but still less than half the death levels from the high plateaus,

-case numbers over twice those from the high plateaus,

>>> hence the factor of 4 in the change in proportionality between the data sets. That is a very large fundamental shift in the data.

I don't have a premium membership so I can't post graphs generated with the very latest data, I've done a search where those two charts are side by side. Your combined tendency to attribute malice on my part is pretty tiresome.


Basically here is the situation as I see it in the US:

-All the large eastern/northern states with large urban centers have already cycled through and are not likely to bounce back, and they haven't. Those were the low-hanging fruits: NY/NJ (170), Boston/MA (124), Philly/PA (56), Detroit/MI (64), Chicago/IL (60). All these death curves look like those from W. Europe, late stage bell-shaped.

Numbers in parentheses are deaths per 100k, as tabulated here:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/

-Sun Belt states have not experienced a large number of deaths to date relative to their size: FL (28), TX (20), CA(22) and maybe GA (33). They account for the current bounce. There is a relatively high level of uncertainty about where they will go, for example how far TX (20) will close the gap with on Louisiana (84), or NC(18) with Maryland (57).

None of these states are likely to get sustained ICU shortages like those that hit NY, their vitamin D levels are higher, with heat and humidity a factor, and their nursing home policies are probably not going to be as reckless as those in NY. We'll see how it goes...

Cal88 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Your attribution of a strawman to me is risible. You said that deaths and infections have become decoupled which means that there is no relation. I've claimed that there is a relationship, not that the relationship will remain constant over time (eg the multiplier will not remain constant). As I've noted, the mix has shifted younger (which drives the death rate lower) and that we have improved treatments which further reduce the rate. Nonetheless, some portion of the infected will die weeks after they become infected. Also, the lag will vary over time depending on how early in the infection cycle we are diagnosing people. I would expect we've cut the death rate by at least half if not more, but that it will still be proportional to infected.

---

"It will still be proportional to infected"

The ratio has decreased by a factor of 4. I've actually quantified the level of decoupling between the number of new cases and the new deaths, here is what I've said above: the new case curve has decoupled from the new death cases, overshooting it by a factor of 4+:"

We have today is:

-deaths rising, but still less than half the death levels from the peak,

-more than twice the case numbers from the peak,

>>> hence the factor of 4 in the change in proportionality between the data sets. That is a very large fundamental shift in the data.

I don't have a premium membership so I can't post graphs generated with the very latest data, I've done a search where those two charts are side by side. Your combined tendency to attribute malice on my part is pretty tiresome.


Basically here is the situation as I see it in the US:

-All the large eastern/northern states with large urban centers have already cycled through and are not likely to bounce back, and they haven't. Those were the low-hanging fruits: NY/NJ (170), Boston/MA (124), Philly/PA (56), Detroit/MI (64), Chicago/IL (60). All these death curves look like those from W. Europe, late stage bell-shaped.

Numbers in parentheses are deaths per 100k, as tabulated here:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/

-Sun Belt states have not experienced a large number of deaths to date relative to their size: FL (28), TX (20), CA(22) and maybe GA (33). They account for the current bounce. There is a relatively high level of uncertainty about where they will go, for example how far TX (20) will close the gap with on Louisiana (84), or NC(18) with Maryland (57).

None of these states are likely to get sustained ICU shortages like those that hit NY, their vitamin D levels are higher, with heat and humidity a factor, and their nursing home policies are probably not going to be as reckless as those in NY. We'll see how it goes...

---

I attribute it to malice because you constantly post out of date charts or charts without citations. What's tiring is when you pass off misleading and unverified charts as reliable data to prove a point that you can't prove with sourced reliable data. If you don't want to be accused of posting in malice, start posting good faith data that we can examine. I continually poke holes in the data you post because there are holes to be poked. That's your problem, not mine.

People like you were saying that the sunbelt states would be saved by the heat and now they're saying the heat makes it worse because people flee to AC indoors. There is always some wild unverified theory that you are certain of but can't provide any objective and well-supported evidence for. You almost never cite peer-reviewed studies because your self-sealing conspiracy theories rule them out as the product of big pharma or other nefarious actors.

Yet you constantly cherrypick misleading or out of date data to support an argument that you can't make with good sourced data.

I let this one go earlier, but here we go from your first post in this thread.



What is your source for this chart? Who is gummibear737? How did he/she/they determine which countries had different levels of usage of HCQ?

Based on articles I've read, many of the countries in the "No HCQ Use" category did prescribe HCQ. Many of them stopped after study after study showed it to be ineffective, but by that time the bulk of the deaths was behind them. If I were you I would say that the deaths stopped when they stopped prescribing HCQ but I'm not you so I will acknowledge that there is probably no relation. Brazil is basically the poster child for HCQ use and yet is put into the mixed category. You frequently tout Iran as a success but it's in the mixed category (you will say they didn't use it from the get go). So you cite Iran both as evidence of HCQ because of their success and because of their failure. How convenient for you.

So why don't you start by agreeing to only cite data that you can support and acknowledge in good faith the limitations in the data (including when you can't find more recent data). I endeavor to post limitations that I'm aware of and if you think I'm being disingenuous I welcome you to challenge me on my data. Sunshine is the best disinfectant, right?

If you were here in good faith that would be easy to do but I suspect you will disappear for a few weeks and retool your conspiracies and come back with ever yet misleading data and the struggle will begin anew.