Comments by "MarcosElMalo2" (@MarcosElMalo2) on "Dr. John Campbell" channel.

  1. 70
  2. 31
  3. 26
  4. 21
  5. 19
  6. 18
  7. 18
  8. 17
  9. 17
  10. 15
  11. 15
  12. 15
  13. I can’t say I’m doing perfectly fine, but I seem to be handling the isolation much better than others as I’m more comfortable with extended solitude. However, pre-pandemic, I could and did participate in my community and socializing when I wanted. And I made it a point to get outside (and get out of my head) to be of service to my community (mostly teaching kids English in my working class neighborhood in Mexico). I’m still subject to falling into deep depression. But I have decades of experience with depression, I know the warning signs, I’ve set up safeguards. Most of all, I know that periods of depression pass. I know that even extended periods of depression have breaks, moments of relief and even joy. I’ve learned to take advantage of these moments. This last winter was tough, but winters are often that way for me, especially around the holidays. My usual strategy of being of service to others was limited this year and I had a loss of income leading to financial anxiety. I don’t want to paint myself as some sort of saint. I’m not. The point is, one of my basic tools to deal with my depression is to act in ways opposite my natural inclinations of selfishness and self-centeredness. I can counteract my cruel tendencies (to others AND myself) with acts of kindness. I can pull myself out of morbid introspection with physical activity. (While I believe introspection is generally good, I also know there’s such a thing as too much of a good thing.) The pandemic has made my usual depression-countering strategies more difficult, but I’ve tried to adapt and I’m still adapting.
    14
  14. 14
  15. 14
  16. 14
  17. 14
  18. 14
  19. 14
  20. 14
  21. 12
  22. 12
  23. 12
  24. 11
  25. 11
  26. 11
  27. 11
  28. 11
  29. 11
  30. 11
  31. 10
  32. 10
  33. 10
  34. 9
  35. 9
  36. 9
  37. 9
  38. 9
  39. 9
  40. 9
  41. 8
  42. 8
  43. 8
  44. 8
  45. 8
  46. 8
  47. 8
  48. 8
  49. 8
  50. 8
  51. 8
  52. 8
  53. 8
  54. 8
  55. 8
  56. 8
  57. 8
  58. 7
  59. 7
  60. 7
  61. 7
  62. 7
  63. 7
  64. 7
  65. 7
  66. 7
  67. 7
  68. 6
  69. 6
  70. 6
  71. 6
  72. 6
  73. 6
  74. 6
  75. 6
  76. 6
  77. 6
  78. 6
  79. 6
  80. 6
  81. 6
  82. 6
  83. 6
  84. 6
  85. 6
  86. 6
  87. 6
  88. 6
  89. 6
  90. 6
  91. 6
  92. 6
  93. 6
  94. 6
  95. 6
  96. 5
  97. 5
  98. 5
  99. 5
  100. Not as “chilling” as the current polar effect of climate change we might be experiencing currently! 😫 But seriously, preparations for the next pandemic should be accompanied by a deep evaluation of how our societies operate, the flexibility of the frameworks of our politics, and the management of resources. What do I mean by all of the above? I’m a conservative, and it’s clear in my mind that the conservative response to the pandemic has been insufficient at best, and counterproductive at worst. There is a time and place for an emphasis on individual liberty and free enterprise, but a global emergency is not it. (Not to mention that other structural weaknesses of the conservative program have been revealed by the pandemic that undermines the conservative stance.) What is required is more social cohesion, not less. More international cooperation, not nationalism. And though it pains me to say it, more liberal redistribution of resources to insure everyone can survive disruptions to the economy. This liberal spending has already required a near disastrous overextension of credit in my country. When the current emergency has passed, that borrowing needs to be repaid so that we can borrow again in the next emergency. (To be honest here, in my country, the more liberal of the two major parties has a better track record when it comes to deficits. I think this is more the case that the conservative party has actually gone off the rails and lost touch with the meaning of conservatism. Maybe liberals make better conservatives?) To me, the proper response to recurrent emergencies is, you lay by a reserve during fat years so that you can draw on it during lean years. You invest in the infrastructure you will need to call on during emergencies, instead of letting it whither in between emergencies.
    5
  101. 5
  102. 5
  103. 5
  104. 5
  105. 5
  106. 5
  107. 5
  108. 5
  109. 5
  110. 5
  111. 5
  112. 5
  113. 5
  114. 5
  115. 5
  116. 5
  117. 5
  118. 5
  119. 5
  120. 5
  121. 5
  122. 5
  123. 5
  124. 5
  125. 5
  126. 4
  127. 4
  128. 4
  129. 4
  130. 4
  131. 4
  132. 4
  133. 4
  134. 4
  135. 4
  136. 4
  137. The “audience” skews heavily towards antivax trolls that organize on outside websites and come here as a group to spread disinformation, sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt, and insult Dr. Campbell. If you subtract these pieces of shit and the delusional idiots, I don’t think you can make that sort of assumption about Dr. Campbell’s sincere audience. It seems to me that if you cut through the noise and ignorance in the comments, you’ll find people interested in learning the facts and the current consensus, such as they are. John is a more in-depth source than the news media in his areas of expertise. The only recommendation he’s made beyond the standard protocols, afaik, is Vitamin D (and zinc?). He’s talked about research into other therapies, but has never recommended anything else. This isn’t a channel where the “self managing” can find alternative medicine “hacks” (even as there are quite a few hacks promoting nonsense in the comments). If you are here to understand how to care for your family, it’s quite simple: mask, hygiene, distancing, air circulation/fresh air, and get fully vaccinated as soon as you can. How many times must this basic message be repeated for your supposedly rational self managing audience members to understand? The thing about mandates is no one wants them, but many understand that they are becoming necessary to avoid worse. I don’t want a Nanny State, but it’s become clear that there are many people (ostensibly adults) misbehaving like children and throwing tantrums or worse. When people’s behavior, either individually or in groups, harms society, that society must react by setting limits on those individuals and groups. Often social norms and peer pressure are sufficient, but when they’re not and the moral infants escalate their anti-social behavior, we as a society will escalate harm prevention measures. Even a small c conservative such as myself understands this. I also understand that there are certain anti-democratic types who hope to create unrest. Traditionally these types have been on the left, but it seems that the extreme reactionary right has picked up some tricks from Marx, Lenin, and Mao.
    4
  138. 4
  139. 4
  140. 4
  141. 4
  142. 4
  143. 4
  144. 4
  145. 4
  146. 4
  147. 4
  148. 4
  149. 4
  150. 4
  151. 4
  152. 4
  153. 4
  154. 4
  155. 4
  156. 4
  157. 4
  158. 4
  159. 4
  160. 4
  161. 4
  162. 4
  163. 4
  164. 4
  165. 4
  166. 4
  167. 4
  168. 4
  169. 4
  170. 4
  171. 4
  172. 3
  173. 3
  174. 3
  175. 3
  176. 3
  177. 3
  178. 3
  179. 3
  180. 3
  181. 3
  182. 3
  183. 3
  184. 3
  185. 3
  186. 3
  187. 3
  188. 3
  189. 3
  190. 3
  191. 3
  192. 3
  193. 3
  194. 3
  195. 3
  196. 3
  197. 3
  198. 3
  199. 3
  200. 3
  201. 3
  202. 3
  203. 3
  204. 3
  205. 3
  206. 3
  207. 3
  208. 3
  209. 3
  210. 3
  211. 3
  212. 3
  213. 3
  214. 3
  215. 3
  216. 3
  217. 3
  218. 3
  219. 3
  220. 3
  221. 3
  222. 3
  223. 3
  224. 3
  225. 3
  226. 3
  227. 3
  228. 3
  229. 3
  230. 3
  231. 3
  232. 3
  233. 3
  234. 3
  235. 3
  236. 3
  237. 3
  238.  @politics4816  it’s because non-specialist physicians don’t want to go out on a limb until a treatment is examined by an expert like Dr. Lawrie, who has the competence (not to mention the authority) to tie together the bits and bobs of data coming in from ad hoc clinical “studies”. Studies in quotes, because more often than not, they’re being done in desperate circumstances with varying amounts of scientific rigor. Look at where the studies are being done, and you’ll see the worst pandemic hotspots, overwhelmed hospitals, and shortages of things like oxygen. Keep in mind that while this has been going on, there’s probably ten or more other treatments also being extolled by quacks. If you’re wondering why it’s taken so long, it’s because it’s taken a certain amount of time for the signal of ivermectin to rise above the noise of quackery and pseudoscience. Let’s be clear about what Dr. Lawrie is saying. She’s saying it’s 1) Probably safe, and 2) Probably effective. Highly probable, if you like. She is saying that this meets the level she requires for “pandemic license” to prescribe ivermectin. In addition to this, she mentions the hypothetical mechanisms by which ivermectin is effective, and supplies the data that seems to back up the hypotheses. The overall message is that while more study is necessary to understand exactly what is going on, there is enough data to proceed widely with treatment, even in non-desperate situations. I was very skeptical about ivermectin, but Dr. Lawrie and her work is removing doubt. I’ll be overjoyed if my skepticism is proven wrong. I do not think I was wrong to be skeptical, however, given the amount of ignorance and disinformation surrounding the promotion of ivermectin (a lot of noise, little signal).
    3
  239. 3
  240. 3
  241. 3
  242. 3
  243. 3
  244. 3
  245. 3
  246. 3
  247. 3
  248. 3
  249. 3
  250. 3
  251. 3
  252. 3
  253. 3
  254. 3
  255. 3
  256. 3
  257. 3
  258. 3
  259. 3
  260. 3
  261. 3
  262. 3
  263. 3
  264. 3
  265. Some speculation: I’m wondering if Redfield didn’t have access to 5-eyes signals intelligence. Unlikely that 5-👁 agencies can tap internal phone calls in Communist China, but they might have ways of detecting volume: if there was a flurry of communication activity between different organizations in Wuhan in October, it would suggest some event had taken place. This isn’t proof, nor would intelligence organizations want to disclose their capabilities by presenting such data as circumstantial evidence. But one wonders how and why Redfield would form such strong opinions. A second circumstantial indicator would be a sudden drop off in communications, both internally and with external contacts/collaborators. This is the opposite scenario from the above, but in each case there’s a unmissable change in volume from normal communication. 5-Eyes are the intelligence agencies of UK, U.S., Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. They share signals intelligence (and probably human intelligence on a very limited basis), and they also collaborate from time to time with other allies, such as France, Germany, Israel, (maybe) Saudi Arabia. In the U.S., the lead agency would be the NSA. I don’t want to generate paranoia here about surveillance states, so let me explain a bit about how the NSA performs it’s work: they’re prevented from using broad warrantless phone taps by the U.S. Constitution, so they rely on metadata. Metadata can be collection and analysis of communication volumes. It can be who is talking to who, but not the content of those communications. It can be discovering who is using encrypted communication (again, without knowing the content). In the U.S., the NSA has made it clear that they don’t support the FBI’s attempts to make encryption illegal. This is because the NSA can tell a great deal from the metadata. They can discover covert networks and covert activity without violating the civil rights of U.S. citizens. The Tinfoil Hat Brigade will suggest I’m naive, that of course the NSA spies on U.S. citizens, that there is a grand conspiracy, etc. I’d say it’s not happening because it’s not in the organization’s best long term interest. Conspiracies and coverups get exposed sooner or later, and this hurts the standing (and funding) of the organization and brings attention to the organization. While each of the Five Eyes countries have different laws concerning civil rights, they generally operate under the most restrictive rules for mutual protection. The last thing they want is too much attention, scrutiny, and potential embarrassment. In addition to these concerns, there’s also the problem of the sheer volume of data if the NSA was taping everyone’s phones. There just isn’t enough computing power to comb thru everyone’s conversations, looking for signals among the vast amount of noise. Similarly, there isn’t enough computing power to try and decrypt all the encrypted communications, even if they have that capability, which is uncertain. But as I said, these agencies are able to fulfill their missions by combing through and analyzing metadata. It’s for this reason that I think these agencies discovered anomalous activity (either a sharp rise or sharp drop) in Wuhan in late autumn and early winter in Wuhan in 2019. It wouldn’t be conclusive evidence, but it would be enough for Redfield to form a “strong opinion”. This is all speculation on my part. I’m not an expert on intelligence and espionage, but I’ve got an “interested layman’s” education on the subject. I’m more interested in explanations based what is public knowledge, rather than paranoia and conspiracy theories (or too many spy movies).
    3
  266. 3
  267. If people just got more exercise and better diets, they wouldn’t need hospitalization after being involved in car accidents. The body has natural immunities and healing powers against traumatic injuries. People in comas would recover more quickly if they would just release their anger and think positive thoughts. The above is a joke, and I’m sad that I have to spell that out. Alaska Anybody following what’s happening in Alaska? It’s also having a big surge in cases that is overwhelming its hospital system, despite a comparatively high vaccination rate. It’s not totally clear why, but some things stand out. Alaska is the biggest state, but with low population density, with many far flung communities served by a “spoke and hub” hospital infrastructure. Local clinics are the first line of medical care, and in normal times, they send critical patients to hospitals in the big cities that have the capacity and capability to treat critical injuries and diseases. So one of the problems being suffered in Alaska is that the city hospitals don’t have open beds for those needing critical care that are currently in the clinics. And the clinics are not equipped to handle so many patients in need of critical care. The nearest states are experiencing their own surges and do not have open beds to receive these patients. However, that doesn’t explain the surge of cases to begin with despite the vaccination rate. Perhaps the political environment might help explain. The governor will not impose any sort of health protocol mandates, including masks (and vaccines, obviously) or instituting temporary lockdowns because he feels that “freedom” is more important than community health. Local officials are following suit; some going further. A recently elected mayor of a big city ran on an anti-mask and vaccine platform, and he has pledged to never support mandates. Besides the politics, I think there might be a mistaken notion about the effective herd protection given by certain vaccination rates. If 85% vaccination rates achieve herd immunity, and your state has achieved 50% vaccination, that doesn’t mean that you will have 50% fewer infections. This is especially true if people are not masking and not following other safety protocols.
    3
  268. 3
  269. 3
  270. 3
  271. 3
  272. 3
  273. 3
  274. 3
  275. 3
  276. 3
  277. 3
  278. 3
  279. 3
  280. 3
  281. 2
  282. 2
  283. 2
  284. 2
  285. 2
  286. 2
  287. 2
  288. 2
  289. 2
  290. 2
  291. 2
  292. 2
  293. 2
  294. 2
  295. 2
  296. 2
  297. 2
  298. 2
  299. 2
  300. 2
  301. 2
  302. 2
  303. 2
  304. 2
  305. 2
  306. 2
  307. 2
  308. 2
  309. 2
  310. 2
  311. 2
  312. 2
  313. 2
  314. 2
  315. 2
  316. 2
  317. 2
  318. 2
  319. 2
  320. 2
  321. 2
  322. 2
  323.  @petef1273  I’d also add that the basic mechanisms for how D3 operates in the human body are already understood. Indeed, D3 is a part of our bodies’ functioning. It’s the insufficiency of Vitamin D that makes us MORE vulnerable to COVID-19 and other maladies. Contrast this with Ivermectin, an effective anti-parasite neurotoxin normally used at low doses. THERE IS NO KNOWN MECHANISMS BY WHICH IT WORKS AS AN ANTIVIRAL. High dosage studies are NOT showing convincingly the purported results that ANTIVAXXERS are claiming. Many of these studies are NOT controlling for other factors, making them less than gold standard. While low dosages have proven to be safe and effective for the treatment of parasites, the high dosages used in those studies that might indicate potential efficacy are also showing evidence that they are dangerous, possibly leading to depression, suicide, and god knows what else (we are talking about a neurotoxin, after all). Furthermore, ANTIVAXXERS are misleadingly playing with numbers, fraudulently linking low dosage widespread use for parasites with Covid statistics, without controlling for other factors. The statistical numbers they are using are questionable due to testing and reporting issues. In some cases these Antivaxxers are fabricating numbers entirely. These antivaxxers have demonstrated time after time a basic dishonesty. They use propaganda techniques, such as using fake accounts to create the impression that more people support their claims. They fraudulently try to support their claims by linking to studies that say the opposite of what they claim. They fabricate statistics or make unsupported cause/effect linkages between numbers. Finally, when all else fails, they bring forth their conspiracy theories. DO NOT BELIEVE ANTIVAXXERS.
    2
  324. 2
  325. 2
  326. 2
  327. 2
  328. 2
  329. 2
  330. 2
  331. 2
  332. 2
  333. 2
  334. 2
  335. 2
  336. 2
  337. 2
  338. 2
  339. 2
  340. 2
  341. 2
  342. 2
  343. 2
  344. 2
  345. 2
  346. 2
  347. 2
  348. 2
  349. 2
  350. 2
  351. 2
  352. 2
  353. 2
  354. 2
  355. 2
  356. 2
  357. 2
  358. 2
  359. 2
  360. 2
  361. 2
  362. 2
  363. 2
  364. 2
  365. 2
  366. 2
  367. 2
  368. 2
  369. 2
  370. 2
  371. 2
  372. 2
  373. 2
  374. 2
  375. 2
  376. 2
  377. 2
  378. 2
  379. 2
  380. 2
  381. 2
  382. 2
  383. 2
  384. 2
  385. 2
  386. 2
  387. 2
  388. 2
  389. 2
  390. 2
  391. 2
  392. 2
  393. 2
  394. 2
  395. 2
  396. 2
  397. 2
  398. 2
  399. 2
  400. 2
  401. 2
  402. 2
  403. 2
  404. 2
  405. 2
  406. 2
  407. 2
  408. 2
  409. 2
  410. 2
  411. 2
  412. 2
  413. 2
  414. 2
  415. Ivermectin has no mechanism as an antiviral. It’s a neurotoxin used to treat parasites. It attacks and destroys the primitive nervous systems worms and lice. If it was an effective therapeutic, what is the mechanism? The largest manufacturer and distributor of ivermectin is Merck. If ivermectin had any efficacy, Merck would stand to make billions of dollars. Merck just conducted the largest study so far on ivermectin. The study shows ivermectin has no efficacy in treating the virus. Merck’s own antivirus candidate failed miserably, and Merck is searching for other candidates from smaller bio-medical companies to acquire—a big financial risk to take if they were sitting on a goldmine. Oh, and the Merck study also shows that high dosages of ivermectin are unsafe. There is a therapeutic threshold in its treatment of parasites that shouldn’t be exceeded. So, no scientific mechanism for how ivermectin might work as an antiviral. The company that stands to gain the most is reporting that their medication has no efficacy as an antiviral after conducting a comprehensive study (and is dangerous at higher levels). It seems clear that ivermectin has no medical role to play as a therapeutic or a prophylactic. Yet antivaxxers continue to push it as an alternative to vaccines, while stirring up fear, uncertainty, and doubt about vaccines. Do you realize that continuation of your disinformation posts is harmful to the health of others, that you might be contributing to the unnecessary deaths of others?. I urge you in the name of decency to stop.
    2
  416. 2
  417. 2
  418. 2
  419. 2
  420. 2
  421. 2
  422. 2
  423. 2
  424. 2
  425. 2
  426. 2
  427. 2
  428. 2
  429. 2
  430. 2
  431. 2
  432. 2
  433. 2
  434. 2
  435. 2
  436. 2
  437. 2
  438. 2
  439. 2
  440. 2
  441. 2
  442. 2
  443. 2
  444. 2
  445. 2
  446. 2
  447. 2
  448. 2
  449. 2
  450. 2
  451. 2
  452. 2
  453. 2
  454. 2
  455. 2
  456. 2
  457. 2
  458. 2
  459. 2
  460. 2
  461. 2
  462. 2
  463. 2
  464. 2
  465. 2
  466. 2
  467. 2
  468. 2
  469. 2
  470. 2
  471. Low likelihood that he’ll even see this and respond. I realize you want an expert opinion, but it’s not always initially clear who is a credible source (and I consider John Campbell to be credible and trustworthy). You might have to do some research of your own and then using that evaluate the credibility of “expert” sources. The first thing you want to look at is the mechanism of how “treatment X” is supposedly supposed to work on the human body. For example, I did some research on an anti-parasitical that is being widely touted in some circles as a Covid medicine (both preventative and cure). I discovered that it’s widely used treatment for worms, lice, and other parasites, especially in those parts of the world where these parasites are prevalent. The mechanism is this: it’s a neurotoxin that attacks the nervous system of tiny critters like lice and worms. The effective doses are low enough that they don’t normally have an affect on the human (or animal) nervous system. However, I also could NOT find any mechanism by which it would have any effect whatsoever on viruses. Absolutely none. Neurotoxins have no effect on viruses because . . . Viruses don’t have nervous systems. There was information about its used to prevent Malaria, BUT . . . It was being used for mosquito control, a major parasite vehicle for malaria, not directly attack the virus. So despite the glowing claims from some, this medication sadly didn’t pan out. What studies that have been done have been inconclusive, and since there is no scientific reason why it would work as an antiviral, there isn’t much interest in the scientific community. As I said, it’s already in wide use throughout the world, so it has been studied for its intended use. But I’ve got a success story, too. Vitamin D, specifically Vitamin D3. My research there was much more fruitful. It’s a well known component of human metabolism, it’s interactions with other metabolic systems is understood. D3 deficiency is understood, (and is slowly being linked to increased Covid infection risk). (This research is how I found this channel, by the way.) A few other key things I learned: There is no harm in taking D3 up to some pretty high doses. If it doesn’t actually help, it won’t hurt. It’s not highly expensive. These are two key things in my search for ways to minimize risk of infection (and hopefully, lessening of symptoms if I do become infected). 1) “won’t hurt, might help”, 2) reasonable cost. So I suggest to you to first research glutathione’s specific mechanism(s). Not claims, but how it is actually supposed to work, what interactions it is having with the body. If there have been scientific studies, the studies might describe this mechanism or function. If there is no plausible mechanism, ask yourself, 1) if this doesn’t help, will it hurt?, and 2) is it a great waste of money or a trivial one? Also, there might be other benefits that are not Covid related to take into consideration. Good luck, and don’t give up hope if a supplement or substance doesn’t pan out. Move on and keep researching.
    2
  472. 2
  473. 2
  474. 2
  475. 2
  476. 2
  477. 2
  478. 2
  479. 2
  480. I’m very glad to hear you’re doing well! I have a point of confusion wrt to dosage requirements. It’s not a crucial question, since one can take fairly high dosages without ill effects, even if most of those high dosages are not being absorbed. But the question is this: what are the minimum dosage requirements and how can they be detected? My understanding is that vitamin supplements not absorbed by the body are eliminated. I see this when I pee. My urine is much brighter and darker. When I’m drinking plenty of water, my urine is lighter. Not enough, it’s darker. In neither case is it brighter, as when I’m taking vitamin supplements. The brightness is NOT a concern. I understand that it means I’m getting more than enough. More to the point, I’ve started taking 2000 IU daily of D3 in gel capsule form, and my pee is brighter. Am I correct that this is a good indication that I’m getting sufficient a sufficient amount (without getting laboratory tests to see if I have sufficient or deficient levels). Anyway, I am thinking of trying to get everyone on my street on vitamin D3. I live in a working class neighborhood in Mexico. I’m already buying surgical masks for several families here, and I hand out masks to maskless people on the street. Currently there is a lot of unemployment here due to Covid, and the economic situation is even more precarious than what we are suffering in the U.S. The pandemic has hit my street pretty hard: 8 people that I know of have died, many others are gravely sick. I know there’s variation from person to person in D3 deficiency, thus there’s variation in minimum effective doses. The supplemental capsules I’m taking are inexpensive for me, a single person with regular income. But it adds up if I’m going to be buying sufficient capsules for 60 people. This is the reason I’m asking, and I hope someone can give me some insight.I’m very glad to hear you’re doing well! I have a point of confusion wrt to dosage requirements. It’s not a crucial question, since one can take fairly high dosages without ill effects, even if most of those high dosages are not being absorbed. But the question is this: what are the minimum dosage requirements and how can they be detected? My understanding is that vitamin supplements not absorbed by the body are eliminated. I see this when I pee. My urine is much brighter and darker. When I’m drinking plenty of water, my urine is lighter. Not enough, it’s darker. In neither case is it brighter, as when I’m taking vitamin supplements. The brightness is NOT a concern. I understand that it means I’m getting more than enough. More to the point, I’ve started taking 2000 IU daily of D3 in gel capsule form, and my pee is brighter. Am I correct that this is a good indication that I’m getting sufficient a sufficient amount (without getting laboratory tests to see if I have sufficient or deficient levels). Anyway, I am thinking of trying to get everyone on my street on vitamin D3. I live in a working class neighborhood in Mexico. I’m already buying surgical masks for several families here, and I hand out masks to maskless people on the street. Currently there is a lot of unemployment here due to Covid, and the economic situation is even more precarious than what we are suffering in the U.S. The pandemic has hit my street pretty hard: 8 people that I know of have died, many others are gravely sick. I know there’s variation from person to person in D3 deficiency, thus there’s variation in minimum effective doses. The supplemental capsules I’m taking are inexpensive for me, a single person with regular income. But it adds up if I’m going to be buying sufficient capsules for 60 people. This is the reason I’m asking, and I hope someone can give me some insight.
    2
  481. 2
  482. 2
  483. 2
  484. 2
  485. 2
  486. 2
  487. 2
  488. 2
  489. 2
  490. 2
  491. 2
  492. 2
  493. 2
  494. 2
  495. 2
  496. 2
  497. 2
  498. 2
  499. 2
  500. 2
  501. 2
  502. 2
  503. 2
  504. 2
  505. 2
  506. 1
  507. 1
  508. 1
  509. 1
  510. 1
  511. 1
  512. 1
  513. 1
  514. 1
  515. 1
  516. 1
  517. 1
  518. 1
  519. 1
  520. 1
  521. 1
  522. 1
  523. 1
  524. 1
  525. 1
  526. 1
  527. 1
  528. 1
  529. 1
  530. 1
  531. 1
  532. 1
  533. 1
  534. 1
  535. 1
  536. 1
  537. 1
  538. 1
  539. 1
  540. 1
  541. 1
  542. 1
  543. 1
  544. 1
  545. 1
  546. 1
  547. 1
  548. 1
  549. 1
  550. 1
  551. 1
  552. 1
  553. 1
  554. 1
  555. 1
  556. 1
  557. 1
  558. 1
  559. 1
  560. 1
  561. 1
  562. 1
  563. 1
  564. 1
  565. 1
  566. 1
  567. 1
  568. 1
  569. 1
  570. 1
  571. 1
  572. 1
  573. 1
  574. 1
  575. 1
  576. 1
  577. 1
  578. 1
  579. 1
  580. 1
  581. 1
  582. 1
  583. 1
  584. 1
  585. 1
  586. 1
  587. 1
  588. 1
  589. 1
  590. 1
  591. 1
  592. 1
  593. 1
  594. 1
  595. 1
  596. 1
  597. 1
  598. 1
  599. 1
  600. 1
  601. 1
  602. 1
  603. 1
  604. 1
  605. 1
  606. 1
  607. 1
  608. 1
  609. 1
  610. 1
  611. 1
  612. 1
  613. 1
  614. 1
  615. 1
  616. 1
  617. 1
  618. 1
  619. 1
  620. 1
  621. 1
  622. 1
  623. 1
  624. 1
  625. 1
  626. 1
  627.  @pmw3839  Short answer is yes, but having both is not a great cause for worry if you’re vaccinated. It’s likely that these early omicron cases also include a proportion of delta. It’s still the same disease, but your question is interesting. Think of it this way: a person with both (such as the first person in whom the mutation occurred). For whatever reason the omicron variant is more effective (spike change leading to more successful or faster binding to receptors) it began spreading faster in the body of the infected person. When they infected others, it was a combination of the two in some proportion. As others were infected, the omicron variant was able to outperform the delta variant in each host body (those bodies being our fellow humans). The proportion of the omicron variant increases and delta decreases—quite literally one person at a time. My informed layman’s guess is that if one has some amount of immunity to delta through vaccination or previous illness, those immunities are further blocking or suppressing the delta variant, giving omicron a leg up, but having both variants becomes less and less likely as omicron spreads. Unknowns: 1)omicron is milder (some data) 2) infection with omicron will provide immunities for previous variants should they pop back up (no data) 3) omicron immunities will be affective against future variants (no data) There is some preliminary evidence that (1) is true, so there is reason to be hopeful. (2) and (3) are wild guesses on my part—we’ll learn more in the coming days, weeks, and months.
    1
  628. 1
  629. 1
  630. 1
  631. 1
  632. 1
  633. 1
  634. 1
  635. 1
  636. 1
  637. 1
  638. 1
  639. 1
  640. 1
  641. 1
  642. 1
  643. 1
  644. 1
  645. 1
  646. 1
  647. 1
  648. 1
  649. 1
  650. 1
  651. 1
  652. 1
  653. 1
  654. 1
  655. 1
  656. 1
  657. 1
  658. 1
  659. 1
  660. 1
  661. 1
  662. 1
  663. 1
  664. 1
  665. 1
  666. 1
  667. 1
  668. 1
  669. 1
  670. 1
  671. 1
  672. 1
  673. 1
  674. 1
  675. 1
  676. 1
  677. 1
  678. 1
  679. 1
  680. 1
  681. 1
  682. 1
  683. 1
  684. 1
  685. 1
  686. 1
  687. 1
  688. 1
  689. 1
  690. 1
  691. 1
  692. 1
  693. 1
  694. 1
  695. 1
  696. 1
  697. It’s a lot of different models. Have you ever seen a hurricane track forecast? Modeling is a bit different than making an expert addition. Scientists create and tweak these complex models with many variables that match past outcomes. Different variables are given different weights in the various models. The idea is that you could have used the model the day before yesterday to predict what happened yesterday. If that all matches up, you input all the latest data to forecast what will happen tomorrow. As you can see from the Doctor’s graph, there are many different models. They don’t all use the same variables, nor do they have the same emphasis on all the variables they share. The teams creating these models are guessing which ones are important, which less so, and which are irrelevant. A couple of things to remember: 1) a model’s forecast is only as good as the data you put in. If the data is inaccurate, the forecast will be inaccurate. 2) the model itself is based on assumptions which in turn are based on historical data. If that data was grossly inaccurate, it could be the assumptions are way off. 3) even with perfect data, you have to make assumptions and sometimes those assumptions that seem to account for events in the past are still wrong. If you’re familiar with the use of models in hurricane tracking, you’ll know that despite a wide variance in forecasts, meteorologists use them to predict what’s going to happen. They know where a hurricane is most likely to go so that the people in that area can take precautions or evacuate. You might also know that meteorologists don’t rely on a single model. They look at them all (and they make note of which have had the best track records).
    1
  698. 1
  699. 1
  700. 1
  701. 1
  702. 1
  703. 1
  704. 1
  705. 1
  706. 1
  707. I’m very glad to hear folks are doing well with vitamin D3 supplements. I have a point of confusion wrt to dosage requirements. It’s not a crucial question, since one can take fairly high dosages without ill effects, even if most of those high dosages are not being absorbed. But it’s important to me for other reasons. The question is this: what are the minimum dosage requirements and how can the right dosage be detected without individual testing? My understanding is that vitamin supplements not absorbed by the body are eliminated. I see this when I pee. My urine is much brighter and darker. When I’m drinking plenty of water, my urine is lighter. Not enough, it’s darker. In neither case is it brighter, as when I’m taking vitamin supplements. The brightness is NOT a concern. I understand that it means I’m getting more than enough. More to the point, I’ve started taking 2000 IU daily of D3 in gel capsule form, and my pee is brighter. Am I correct that this is a good indication that I’m getting sufficient a sufficient amount (without getting laboratory tests to see if I have sufficient or deficient levels). Anyway, I am thinking of trying to get everyone on my street on vitamin D3. I live in a working class neighborhood in Mexico. I’m already buying surgical masks for several families here, and I hand out masks to maskless people on the street. Currently there is a lot of unemployment here due to Covid, and the economic situation is even more precarious than what we are suffering in the U.S. The pandemic has hit my street pretty hard: 8 people that I know of have died, many others are gravely sick. I know there’s variation from person to person in D3 deficiency, thus there’s variation in minimum effective doses. The supplemental capsules I’m taking are inexpensive for me, a single person with regular income. But it adds up if I’m going to be buying sufficient capsules for 60 people. This is the reason I’m asking, and I hope someone can give me some insight.
    1
  708. 1
  709. 1
  710. 1
  711. 1
  712. 1
  713. 1
  714. 1
  715. 1
  716. 1
  717. 1
  718. 1
  719. 1
  720. 1
  721. 1
  722. 1
  723. 1
  724. 1
  725. 1
  726. 1
  727. 1
  728. 1
  729. So, here is what I’ve gleaned from what John has been telling us and some of the scientific research I’ve been reading. At the outset, my initial interest and use of vitamin D3 is that it falls under the rubric of “low risk of harm, probably helpful”, that is to say it can’t hurt, might help. Also, even if it’s preventative effects with Covid-19 are illusory, I’ll still receive other benefits from supplementing my diet with vitamin D3. Here is what I have found: vitamin D is a hormone that affects cellular operation at a genetic level. There’s a lot of science that is studying on HOW it does this, what systems D3 affects, in short, WHAT ARE THE MECHANISMS by which this hormone interacts with the body. These are studies ranging from studies involving laboratory animals (mice), cell cultures, human trials, etc., all with controls for other factors in place. Summary: the BASIC MECHANISM of vitamin D3 is understood, while evidence of D3’s specific efficacy for fighting off COVID 19 is mounting, and the specific mechanisms being involved are being studied. Conclusion: There is a lot of scientific evidence that D3 could specifically help us against this specific pathogen (COVID-19), but even if it doesn’t, it’s established that D3 is a beneficial supplement for those that are D3 deprived. So take it! Also, it’s a low cost intervention that governments and health organizations should be supporting and sponsoring. Let’s contrast this with other interventions, such as ivermectin, an anti-parasite medication. It’s a well known and effective medication to treat various parasites in both humans and animals: head lice, mosquitoes, various worms and nematodes. It can also be toxic for some animals, such as dogs. Got that? It might kill your dog. The anti-parasite mechanism is neurotoxicity. It attacks the nervous system of these parasites. It doesn’t seem to have much adverse affects on humans when taken at the low dose levels used in treatment of parasites. At lower doses, it’s not crossing the brain/blood barrier, meaning that, at lower doses, it’s not attacking brain cells. THERE IS NO KNOWN MECHANISM FOR IVERMECTIN AS AN ANTI-VIRAL. The studies on the efficacy as an anti-viral are, at best, mixed, meaning that THERE IS STILL NO CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT IT WORKS (and we should figure out the mechanism later). In those studies that suggest efficacy, the dosage is very high, at a level considered toxic to humans. At these levels, there is an increase in depression and suicide, leaving me with the question, is it affecting the brain? Is it affecting hormones that affect the brain? And let’s be clear, the studies of high dosage Ivermectin are NOT conclusive. To say that they suggest there might be efficacy is to be quite generous. Countries that have approved ivermectin at high doses for COVID-19 treatment have rescinded that approval because of safety concerns combined with low efficacy. Low dosages (not shown to be effective for COVID) can still be used as originally intended, for parasites. My conclusion: unless my doctor suggests Ivermectin, there is no real benefit as a prevention measure against COVID-19. As a treatment if I ever tested positive, there are other treatments available. If I was in serious condition, dying of COVID-19, and there were no orate treatments available, I’d take it because “why the hell not”. It makes ZERO sense to self prescribe and self medicate with ivermectin. AND #1, IVERMECTIN IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR ANY OF THE VACCINES. Those going this route are putting themselves, their communities, and society at risk. They’re being worse than childish and selfish, they’re being anti-social, bordering on criminal.
    1
  730. 1
  731. 1
  732. 1
  733. 1
  734. 1
  735. 1
  736. 1
  737. 1
  738. 1
  739. 1
  740. 1
  741. 1
  742. 1
  743. 1
  744. 1
  745. 1
  746. 1
  747. 1
  748. 1
  749. 1
  750. 1
  751. 1
  752. 1
  753. 1
  754. 1
  755. 1
  756. 1
  757. 1
  758. 1
  759. 1
  760. 1
  761. 1
  762. 1
  763. 1
  764. 1
  765. 1
  766. 1
  767. 1
  768. 1
  769. 1
  770. 1
  771. 1
  772. 1
  773. 1
  774. 1
  775. 1
  776. 1
  777. 1
  778. 1
  779. 1
  780. 1
  781. 1
  782. 1
  783. 1
  784. 1
  785. 1
  786. 1
  787. 1
  788. 1
  789. 1
  790. 1
  791. 1
  792. 1
  793. 1
  794. 1
  795. 1
  796. 1
  797. 1
  798. 1
  799. 1
  800. 1
  801. 1
  802. 1
  803. 1
  804. 1
  805. 1
  806. 1
  807. 1
  808. 1
  809. 1
  810. 1
  811. 1
  812. 1
  813. 1
  814. 1
  815. 1
  816. 1
  817. 1
  818. 1
  819. 1
  820. 1
  821. 1
  822. 1
  823. 1
  824. 1
  825. 1
  826. 1
  827. 1
  828. 1
  829. 1
  830. 1
  831. 1
  832. 1
  833. 1
  834. 1
  835. 1
  836. 1
  837. 1
  838. 1
  839. 1
  840. 1
  841. 1
  842. 1
  843. 1
  844. 1
  845. 1
  846. 1
  847. 1
  848. 1
  849. 1
  850. 1
  851. 1
  852. 1
  853. 1
  854. 1
  855. 1
  856. 1
  857. 1
  858. 1
  859. Same thing happened in California, more or less. In California, county authorities can still opt for more restrictions, but of course, people don’t restrict their movements to their own counties. My brother-in-law has a job that allows him to work from home (he’s an administrator for a university network, and 99.9% of the work can be done remotely). In normal times, he has a one hour commute that takes him across three counties (home, transiting county, and work county). He and my sister live an hour’s distance from his work due to home prices. He is lucky that he can work from home. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Californians must still travel to work, and a sizable number are commuting across county lines, potentially spreading infection from less restrictive counties to more restrictive counties. It’s untenable, but there is some evidence that people in the less restrictive counties have enough sense and self-discipline to practice more restrictive safety measures on their own, and have done so as California’s infection rates began to skyrocket. I hope that the vaccine availability and distribution issues gets sorted in all our states ASAP, as they re-open. And I hope that more conservatives realize they can maintain their conservative principles while maintaining the safety of their communities, their families, and themselves. The basic principle of rational self-interest needn’t and shouldn’t devolve into infantile selfishness that ultimately harms your individual self—that’s why the word “rational” is there. The extremists would have us believe that active concern for our communities and less fortunate among us is a form of communism, and that taking collective action is a form of collectivism. Perhaps they are, but then they have always have been, and wasn’t seen as a negative before pandemic. How is it that, pre-pandemic, actively working for the health of our communities was seen as a positive, and now is considered a slippery slope towards socialism? I think and hope that conservatives are waking up from the anti-social bad dream and the childish delusions that are killing us. I hope we are returning to our senses, and seeing the noisy few extremists for the absolute lunatics that they are. Side note: although the topic here is obviously gets into politics, I’ve avoided mentioning individual politicians, and I’ve avoided pointing out the well known hypocrisy of liberal politicians. What-aboutism is counterproductive in the face of a pandemic. It’s being used as a convenient excuse to deny the seriousness (or the existence!) of the pandemic. If the liberal governor of a populous state says one thing but does another, he’s setting a bad example and being a hypocrite. This isn’t justification for ignoring one’s own safety! Its just how (some) liberal politicians have always behaved. This is business as usual. It’s not shocking evidence of a nefarious global plot. (And if we are honest, some of our politicians are no better. So let’s just stop with the haggling and quibbling of “what about liberal politician X”.)
    1
  860. 1
  861. 1
  862. 1
  863. 1
  864. 1
  865. 1
  866. 1
  867. 1
  868. 1
  869. 1
  870. 1
  871. 1
  872. 1
  873. 1
  874. 1
  875. 1
  876. 1
  877. 1
  878. 1
  879. 1
  880. 1
  881. 1
  882. 1
  883. 1
  884. 1
  885. 1
  886. 1
  887. 1
  888. 1
  889. 1
  890. 1
  891. 1
  892. 1
  893. 1
  894. 1
  895. 1
  896. 1
  897. 1
  898. 1
  899. 1
  900. 1
  901. 1
  902. 1
  903. 1
  904. 1
  905. 1
  906. 1
  907. 1
  908. 1
  909. 1
  910. 1
  911. 1
  912. 1
  913. 1
  914. 1
  915. 1
  916. 1
  917. 1
  918. 1
  919. 1
  920. 1
  921. 1
  922. 1
  923. 1
  924. 1
  925. 1
  926. 1
  927. 1
  928. 1
  929. 1
  930. 1
  931. 1
  932. 1
  933. 1
  934. 1
  935. 1
  936. 1
  937. 1
  938. 1
  939. 1
  940. 1
  941. 1
  942. 1
  943. 1