Coronavirus

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Feel free to address any of the studies I linked to instead ignoring them.

I already did. Go re-read my posts. Address the rebuttals.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Feel free to also keep posting information from entirely discredited advocacy groups and trying to palm it off as legitimate.

Feel free to not use ad hominems for an article that summarizes research from multiple groups that are not AAPS. Unlike one of your citations which uses research that has nothing to do with it's article, mine directly addresses the topics from each angle with research not done by AAPS. 🙂

Edit - For anyone confused about my position, everyone else is so far below reaching anything resembling close to credible rebuttals that's is a joke for me to even entertain a response. This is not an exaggeration. In the medical science world, quality of research is important. We are not even playing on the same playing field. The science is that strong in favor of my position.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I already did. Go re-read my posts. Address the rebuttals.

Feel free to not use ad hominems for an article that summarizes research from multiple groups that are not AAPS. Unlike one of your citations which uses research that has nothing to do with it's article, mine directly addresses the topics from each angle with research not done by AAPS. 🙂

Edit - For anyone confused about my position, everyone else is so far below reaching anything resembling close to credible rebuttals that's is a joke for me to even entertain a response. This is not an exaggeration. In the medical science world, quality of research is important. We are not even playing on the same playing field. The science is that strong in favor of my position.

Why do you think so many experts around the world, and so many CDC-equivalent organizations around the world are suggesting mask usage now? Do you think it is solely a form of health theater? Or that they are incompetent and mistaken in their reading of the scientific facts?

Originally posted by Artol
Why do you think so many experts around the world, and so many CDC-equivalent organizations around the world are suggesting mask usage now?

They aren't. They are still sending mixed messages on it. Many are still not sure. Robtard has the most conservative stance and you can't go wrong with it - do all the things. Sanitize, social distance, wear a mask, etc. One or more of those is definitely helpful with pure isolation being the most perfect solution (but just not possible).

Originally posted by Artol
Do you think it is solely a form of health theater? Or that they are incompetent and mistaken in their reading of the scientific facts?

Yes, it is health theater because people wanted the masks to be a political thing.

And to the second part, no, many researchers readily admit that the research they have is just not adequate. Even ones that have a clear bias, they readily admit in their research that the research is just not adequate enough.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Feel free to address any of the studies I linked to instead ignoring them.

Feel free to also keep posting information from entirely discredited advocacy groups and trying to palm it off as legitimate.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I already did. Go re-read my posts. Address the rebuttals.

Feel free to not use ad hominems for an article that summarizes research from multiple groups that are not AAPS. Unlike one of your citations which uses research that has nothing to do with it's article, mine directly addresses the topics from each angle with research not done by AAPS. 🙂

Edit - For anyone confused about my position, everyone else is so far below reaching anything resembling close to credible rebuttals that's is a joke for me to even entertain a response. This is not an exaggeration. In the medical science world, quality of research is important. We are not even playing on the same playing field. The science is that strong in favor of my position.

No, you haven't. You spent several posts conversing with Pr. Please stop lying.

I've already shown that you're using outdated studies and the ones referenced in my links are all more relevant and more up to date and from far more credible sources.

I'll give you an example of your behaviour and we can all see how your claims on other people acting dishonestly stack up

So in one post you state this

Don't fall for the junk science where people put masks on and cough on a petri dish - that's not real world science

Then one of your quotes from a study you used to back up your position says this

Known patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 wore masks and coughed into a Petrie dish.

You also keep stating that RTC's are the only applicable appropriate studies. The issue with that is that the meta analysis shows RTCs show bias against the use masks and observational studies show bias FOR the use of masks.

But if you want to go down RTC only here's the latest as of 24 march 2020

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/

_In the community, masks appeared to be effective with and without hand hygiene, and both together are more protective.

The study suggests that community mask use by well people could be beneficial, particularly for COVID-19, where transmission may be pre-symptomatic. The studies of masks as source control also suggest a benefit, and may be important during the COVID-19 pandemic in universal community face mask use as well as in health care settings

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
No, you haven't. You spent several posts conversing with Pr. Please stop lying.

I've already shown that you're using outdated studies and the ones referenced in my links are all more relevant and more up to date and from far more credible sources.

I'll give you an example of your behaviour and we can all see how your claims on other people acting dishonestly stack up

So in one post you state this

Then one of your quotes from a study you used to back up your position says this

You also keep stating that RTC's are the only applicable appropriate studies. The issue with that is that the meta analysis shows RTCs show bias against the use masks and observational studies show bias FOR the use of masks.

But if you want to go down RTC only here's the latest as of 24 march 2020

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/

I've seen just about enough.

I'll be replying soon.

That's ominous...

DDM:
I'm going to take a stab and say that your argument is regarding the idea that the Trump Administration has not been lackluster in it's response concerning the pandemic but not a single thing you cited seems to demonstrate against that claim. Moving on to some of the others, such as:

Originally posted by dadudemon

4. Pushed very hard for known solutions for fighting Coronavirus such as HCQ+Zinc+Azithromycin.

Chloroquine showed efficacy in vitro but not in vivo. So, isolated impacts of specific medications on certain types of cells and/or organisms rather than impacts on actively infected individuals. There are recent studies that outline this and question the efficacy of Chloroquine as a treatment, like this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7354053/

Also:

Additional studies examining hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in preventing and treating COVID-19 are desperately needed. Given the weak evidence available, larger controlled trials are needed to more thoroughly assess if hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine have a clinical benefit in COVID-19.

Additionally, the FDA stripped authorization concerning chloroquine on the following basis:

FDA’s review of the available scientific evidence determined:
• The suggested dosing regimens for CQ and HCQ as detailed in the Fact Sheets are unlikely to
produce an antiviral effect.
• Earlier reports of decreased viral shedding with HCQ or CQ treatment have not been
consistently replicated and recent data from a randomized controlled trial assessing probability
of negative conversion showed no difference between HCQ and standard of care alone.
• Current U.S. treatment guidelines do not recommend the use of HCQ or CQ in hospitalized
patients with COVID-19 outside of a clinical trial, and the NIH guidelines now recommend
against such use outside of a clinical trial.
• Recent data from a large randomized controlled trial showed no evidence of benefit of HCQ
treatment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 for mortality or other outcomes such as
hospital length of stay or need for mechanical ventilation.

On from that,

Originally posted by dadudemon
And, yet again, they try to make it about wearing masks when there's credible study after study that does not support this position (any studies that do support mask wearing are not real world studies that use RCTs - they do not measure real world outcomes just cultures in a petri dish).

I'm not sure where you're going with this. There's a variety of epidemological studies that support the usage of masks due to rate of infectivity, pre-mask and post-mask wearing. It's supported by the WHO and CDC, unless your position is that they're bullshitting? Here's an example:

Mandating face mask use in public is associated with a decline in the daily COVID-19 growth rate by 0.9, 1.1, 1.4, 1.7, and 2.0 percentage-points in 1–5, 6–10, 11–15, 16–20, and 21+ days after signing, respectively. Estimates suggest as many as 230,000–450,000 COVID-19 cases possibly averted By May 22, 2020 by these mandates.

To continue,

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's the WHO and the CDC which are setting the policy, not the White House. And the state and local governments adhere to those guidelines.

This isn't wrong. However, the CDC is also an extension of the executive, since it's a fed agency, and a lot of states and local governments are reliant on the executive and federal level to coordinate and provide some context for their actions and policities. It's pointless implementing something if another state implements something else that has potentiality to counteract it and it's generally the federal government's position to ensure any form/type of response is funded and used efficiently.

To summarize, what exactly are you arguing for? What do you wish to convince another side of? The stipulations you've listed here to stop the pandemic or something else?

Originally posted by Gehenna
DDM:
I'm going to take a stab and say that your argument is regarding the idea that the Trump Administration has not been lackluster in it's response concerning the pandemic but not a single thing you cited seems to demonstrate against that claim. Moving on to some of the others, such as:

Chloroquine showed efficacy in vitro but not in vivo. So, isolated impacts of specific medications on certain types of cells and/or organisms rather than impacts on actively infected individuals. There are recent studies that outline this and question the efficacy of Chloroquine as a treatment, like this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7354053/

Also:

https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/7/4/ofaa130/5820538

Additionally, the FDA stripped authorization concerning chloroquine on the following basis:

On from that,

I'm not sure where you're going with this. There's a variety of epidemological studies that support the usage of masks due to rate of infectivity, pre-mask and post-mask wearing. It's supported by the WHO and CDC, unless your position is that they're bullshitting? Here's an example:

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818

To continue,

This isn't wrong. However, the CDC is also an extension of the executive, since it's a fed agency, and a lot of states and local governments are reliant on the executive and federal level to coordinate and provide some context for their actions and policities. It's pointless implementing something if another state implements something else that has potentiality to counteract it and it's generally the federal government's position to ensure any form/type of response is funded and used efficiently.

Originally posted by Gehenna
To summarize, what exactly are you arguing for? What do you wish to convince another side of? The stipulations you've listed here to stop the pandemic or something else?

It's amazing how the WHO manages to both have zero power to get China to do or admit to anything yet can, at the same time, set American policy with total authority.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
It's amazing how the WHO manages to both have zero power to get China to do or admit to anything yet can, at the same time, set American policy with total authority.

800CA4VA04g&t

https://www.sciencealert.com/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-enters-stage-3-clinical-trials-this-month/amp

Vaccine looking promising.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
No, you haven't. You spent several posts conversing with Pr. Please stop lying.

I've already shown that you're using outdated studies and the ones referenced in my links are all more relevant and more up to date and from far more credible sources.

I'll give you an example of your behaviour and we can all see how your claims on other people acting dishonestly stack up

So in one post you state this

Then one of your quotes from a study you used to back up your position says this

You also keep stating that RTC's are the only applicable appropriate studies. The issue with that is that the meta analysis shows RTCs show bias against the use masks and observational studies show bias FOR the use of masks.

But if you want to go down RTC only here's the latest as of 24 march 2020

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/

I know you're trolling as this is just your way of trolling. But, I'll take it seriously just in case anyone but you is interested in the actual science.

Yes I most certainly did rebut your argument - stop dodging. Additionally, it's random controlled trials, not random trials controlled.

The "Outdated Study" fallacy, huh? The burden is on you to prove that the studies are outdated or irrelevant.

All are 2009 and newer except a single reference to pooling data on the flu since 1946 and that's a reference by the CDC themselves.

Let's go down your study piece by piece (some studies they use are also used in the meta-analysis I cited which is kind of hilarious):

Randomised controlled trials in health care workers showed that respirators, if worn continually during a shift, were effective but not if worn intermittently. Medical masks were not effective, and cloth masks even less effective.

...

The study suggests that community mask use by well people could be beneficial, particularly for COVID-19, where transmission may be pre-symptomatic. The studies of masks as source control also suggest a benefit, and may be important during the COVID-19 pandemic in universal community face mask use as well as in health care settings. Trials in healthcare workers support the use of respirators continuously during a shift. This may prevent health worker infections and deaths from COVID-19, as aerosolisation in the hospital setting has been documented.

What this study is not: proof that the general public benefits from wearing masks.

Proof of what this study could mean but does not mean: respirators worn continuously during healthcare shifts may, not guarantee, offer some protection against COVID-19.

From the actual studies used in this metaanalysis:

Hand Hygiene + Masks:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/#bib0012

Not an RCT and was based on self-reporting.

Mask use adherence was self-reported

We concluded that household use of face masks is associated with low adherence and is ineffective for controlling seasonal respiratory disease.

However, during a severe pandemic when use of face masks might be greater, pandemic transmission in households could be reduced.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/#bib0016

Intention to treat not significant. Masks plus hand hygiene protective against lab confirmed influenza if used within 36 hours. Hand hygiene alone not significant.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/#bib0011

In this population, there was no detectable additional benefit of hand sanitizer or face masks over targeted education on overall rates of URIs

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/#bib0010

No significant difference in confirmed influenza infection

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/#bib0015

Intention to treat analysis was non-significant....M[asks] and M[asks+]H[and Hygiene] were protective against Influenza AH1N1pdm09.

Additionally, this did not specifically test for COVID-19 infections and is based on studies from 2012 and older. It specifically studies for viral respiratory infections which is the same thing my studies looked at. And they have similar conclusions.

Masks alone:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/

In this study, the target study group was N95 masks and the control group was surgical masks.

Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/#bib0022

No significant difference between Masks and targeted N95

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21477136/

This study had a good result for N95s but they are transparent about the weaknesses of their research:

By intention-to-treat analysis, when P values were adjusted for clustering, non-fit-tested N95 respirators were significantly more protective than medical masks against CRI, but no other outcomes were significant.

In a post hoc analysis adjusted for potential confounders, N95 masks and hospital level were significant, but medical masks, vaccination, handwashing and high-risk procedures were not.

...

Rates of infection in the medical mask group were double that in the N95 group. A benefit of respirators is suggested but would need to be confirmed by a larger trial, as this study may have been underpowered. The finding on fit testing is specific to the type of respirator used in the study and cannot be generalized to other respirators.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/#bib0019

Not relevant and primary variable is not present - non-mask group. It would be unethical to force HCW to not use masks as a control group. Showed significant good case for bacterial infection prevention, however:

Continuous use of N95 respirators was more efficacious against CRI than intermittent use of N95 or medical masks. Most policies for HCWs recommend use of medical masks alone or targeted N95 respirator use. Continuous use of N95s resulted in significantly lower rates of bacterial colonization, a novel finding that points to more research on the clinical significance of bacterial infection in symptomatic HCWs.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25903751/

Not relevant unless you want to make a case to not use cloth masks:

Medical masks [more] protective [than cloth Cloth Masks] or Cloth masks increase risk of infection

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/#bib0017
This one is also inline with the research I've posted:

No significant difference between Masks and targeted N95[quote]

Also, any HCWs that wore masks during targeted procedures are adhering to extremely high standards of sanitization. This should be the single largest confounding variable in any of the studies that included targeted procedures in their research groups.

And in this meta-analysis, they conclude similar results to the previous meta-analysis I already posted: N95s are not shown to be more effective than surgical masks. However, what this meta-analysis did find was that N95s had a statistically signfiicant outcome of fewer URIs when N95s were worn continuously.

Additionally, one study did include a non-mask control group (but it cannot be considered an RCT because, in order for it to be a true RCT, you'd have to have the study group performing the same "services/care" in similar environments and control for other variables such as time on shift, age, and vaccination). Guess what it found? Almost no difference between the non-mask group and the medical mask group:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/#bib0020
[quote]We showed lower rates of infection outcomes in the medical mask arm compared to control, but the difference was not significant

Here is also another outcome that does not favor your position:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/#bib0036

A trial of 105 sick patients wearing a mask (or no mask) in the household found no significant difference between arms

However, another study they included did study no-mask vs. mask. And when they controlled for laboratory results (ILI), there was no difference. Meaning, the ILI symptoms being self-reported, demonstrating a lower rate of ILI symptoms, was placebo. Wearing a mask provides a placebo effect which I think explains most of the mask wearing benefits we see - all placebo:

Based on developing syndromic ILI, less contacts became symptomatic in the 'mask' tents compared to the 'control' tents (31% versus 53%, p= 0.04). However, laboratory results did not show any difference between the two groups. This pilot study shows that a large trial to assess the effectiveness of facemasks use at Hajj is feasible.

But, probably the biggest finding in your meta-analysis is the most damning for face-mask use and hand-washing (silly sounding to me - hand washing seems legit especially with people constantly touching their face when wearing a mask but these are the results of the science). It was a large group and included rigorous follow-up and checks by HCWs, not just self-reporting. It also included actual lab-tested outcomes and it would most likely represent the real-world:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21651736/

Influenza transmission was not reduced by interventions to promote hand washing and face mask use. This may be attributable to transmission that occurred before the intervention, poor facemask compliance, little difference in hand-washing frequency between study groups, and shared sleeping arrangements. A prospective study design and a careful analysis of sociocultural factors could improve future NPI studies.

Additionally, here are more studies and meta-anlalyses with RCT:

Cowling, B. et al. (2010) “Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review”, Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456. doi:10.1017/S0950268809991658 https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...C6639CCC9D8BC05 None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either HCW or community members in households (H). See summary Tables 1 and 2 therein.

bin-Reza et al. (2012) “The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence”, Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257–267. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi...59.2011.00307.x “There were 17 eligible studies. … None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask ⁄ respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”

Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis”, CMAJ Mar 2016, cmaj.150835; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.150835 https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567 “We identified 6 clinical studies ... In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism.”

Offeddu, V. et al. (2017) “Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”, Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934–1942, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix681 https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747 “Self-reported assessment of clinical outcomes was prone to bias. Evidence of a protective effect of masks or respirators against verified respiratory infection (VRI) was not statistically significant”; as per Fig. 2c therein:

Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) “N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial”, JAMA. 2019; 322(9): 824–833. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.11645 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/ja...article/2749214 “Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. … Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

Long, Y. et al. (2020) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis”, J Evid Based Med. 2020; 1- 9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12381 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi...1111/jebm.12381 “A total of six RCTs involving 9 171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza, laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection and influenza-like illness using N95 respirators and surgical masks. Meta-analysis indicated a protective effect of N95 respirators against laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.78). The
4 use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

My conclusion is, since N95s are made specifically to not be porous enough to allow a significant portion of URIs but only when used continuously and with rigor to compliance FOR HEALTHCARE WORKERS. This is also my position and I would never deny this. My position has always been about the public not being "highly trained HCWs using N95s in targeted settings, wearing them all day long without fail." That's just not possible. And in some instances, you increase your risk of infection.

Originally posted by Gehenna
DDM:
I'm going to take a stab and say that your argument is regarding the idea that the Trump Administration has not been lackluster in it's response concerning the pandemic but not a single thing you cited seems to demonstrate against that claim. Moving on to some of the others, such as:

Chloroquine showed efficacy in vitro but not in vivo. So, isolated impacts of specific medications on certain types of cells and/or organisms rather than impacts on actively infected individuals. There are recent studies that outline this and question the efficacy of Chloroquine as a treatment, like this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7354053/

Also:

https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/7/4/ofaa130/5820538

Additionally, the FDA stripped authorization concerning chloroquine on the following basis:

On from that,

I'm not sure where you're going with this. There's a variety of epidemological studies that support the usage of masks due to rate of infectivity, pre-mask and post-mask wearing. It's supported by the WHO and CDC, unless your position is that they're bullshitting? Here's an example:

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818

To continue,

This isn't wrong. However, the CDC is also an extension of the executive, since it's a fed agency, and a lot of states and local governments are reliant on the executive and federal level to coordinate and provide some context for their actions and policities. It's pointless implementing something if another state implements something else that has potentiality to counteract it and it's generally the federal government's position to ensure any form/type of response is funded and used efficiently.

Originally posted by Gehenna
To summarize, what exactly are you arguing for? What do you wish to convince another side of? The stipulations you've listed here to stop the pandemic or something else?

So the only thing I'd have to do is find any credible result at all that supports HCQ+others in real-world patient outcomes, right? That would satisfy your interests in this topic and clarify my position as solid, correct?

I'm clarifying so I know which conditions you want me to meet to satisfy your curiosity/interests in this particular topic.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So the only thing I'd have to do is find any credible result at all that supports HCQ+others in real-world patient outcomes, right? That would satisfy your interests in this topic and clarify my position as solid, correct?

I'm clarifying so I know which conditions you want me to meet to satisfy your curiosity/interests in this particular topic.