Docs and scientists of letsrun, please read this article and tell me if what he is writing about Covid-19 treatment is fake news

runnER/DR wrote:

Vitamin D deficiency is associated with worse outcomes, but replacing it doesn't improve outcomes...meaning it's likely a surrogate marker for overall poor health.

Poor outcomes have been correlated with homocysteine levels. There are many studies that support this.

Vitamin D levels are predicated on glutathione. Glutathione itself can be shown to greatly reduce homocysteine levels. I think vitamin D levels could be considered a surrogate marker for homocysteine levels.

Cherry picking from the chart we have vitamin C and metformin toward being most effective. Vitamin C reduces homocysteine, but metformin increases it over time. One would need to dig into the study to see if metformin was given with the required B vitamins it depletes. B12 alone would lower homocysteine levels.

Oddly missing from the chart is B12, B6 and folate. Many viruses in the past have been known put a load on your methyl group requirements. The 'mystery' symptoms virtually all overlap.

This is also very convincing that poor outcomes are related to methyl group deficiencies.

The chart is from the same cranks behind IVMmeta and HCQmeta and other sites. Basically they cherry pick the most positive outcomes from dozens of crappy studies, forget to grade their evidence for trustworthiness entirely, and then somehow report that EVERYTHING works against COVID-19 with a straight face.

It's just standard p-hacking. With enough degrees of freedom you can build up incredible statistically significant relationships from noise alone.

Respected professionals in epidemiology and public health authored the Great Barrington Declaration. They were viciously attacked by Fauci, Collins and their media allies.

What should the average person think ?

Wall Street Journal 21DEC2021

How Fauci and Collins Shut Down Covid Debate

They worked with the media to trash the Great Barrington Declaration.

In public, Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins urge Americans to "follow the science." In private, the two sainted public-health officials schemed to quash dissenting views from top scientists. That's the troubling but fair conclusion from emails obtained recently via the Freedom of Information Act by the American Institute for Economic Research.

The tale unfolded in October 2020 after the launch of the Great Barrington Declaration, a statement by Harvard's Martin Kulldorff, Oxford's Sunetra Gupta and Stanford's Jay Bhattacharya against blanket pandemic lockdowns. They favored a policy of what they called "focused protection" of high-risk populations such as the elderly or those with medical conditions. Thousands of scientists signed the declarationif they were able to learn about it. We tried to give it some elevation on these pages.

That didn't please the lockdown consensus enforced by public-health officials and the press. Dr. Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health until Sunday, sent an email on Oct. 8, 2020, to Dr. Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

"This proposal from the three fringe epidemiologists . . . seems to be getting a lot of attention and even a co-signature from Nobel Prize winner Mike Leavitt at Stanford. There needs to be a quick and devastating published take down of its premises," Dr. Collins wrote. "Is it underway?"

These researchers weren't fringe and neither was their opposition to quarantining society. But in the panic over the virus, these two voices of science used their authority to stigmatize dissenters and crush debate. A week after his email, Dr. Collins spoke to the Washington Post about the Great Barrington Declaration. "This is a fringe component of epidemiology," he said. "This is not mainstream science. It's dangerous." His message spread and the alternative strategy was dismissed in most precincts.

rojo wrote:

I still can't believe people are mad at me for asking questions.

Once a week, you post an obviously garbage study and act like this…

…. on a right wing, anti vax running website.

Correct. Most of us cannot do serious research but you can research a lot. Double blind studies are not foolproof either as demonstrated many times. You can also do your own careful observations. It's really not that hard.

Watching YouTube is actually some of the best research you can do. I disagree there. For example, I have gotten out of a lot of jams and figured out how to do many new things using YouTube. Yes, YouTube can help even with health aspects and you certainly have to take with a grain of salt just like you would a doctor's advice or some talking head expert on tv. Seems a segment of the population has lost complete trust in fellow man but put all of their marbles on old guys in suits hiding behind closed doors. The same thing they say they despise interestingly enough. Watching YouTube or reading a blog is no different from getting information from NPR, Bloomberg, CDC site, a fact check site, or the president. Not one of those had demonstrated to be right a significant amount of time and not one of those has earned enough trust or have lost it. You have to pick your path carefully, and a good thing to keep in mind is what each of the sources have done historically. Have they been caught in lies? Have they led to something that has caused harm? Have there been lawsuits against them? Have there been programs they pushed but proved to be false or just the wrong way to go? Any source you can mention to me has gone through one or more of these issues and many of them multiple times.

Spending your entire working life in academia is a sure sign that you have led a sheltered and narrow existence. Many non medical professionals with PHD’s are quite happy to be called Dr. Smith.

Some of the least intelligent people I know use this title as a shield against questioning their common sense.

the macdaddy og yoo wrote:

do it once.... wrote:

YouTube can help even with health aspects and you certainly have to take with a grain of salt just like you would a doctor's advice or some talking head expert on tv.

Never thought I would see doctors put on the same level as youtubers and talk show hosts, but here we are.

do it once.... wrote:

Watching YouTube or reading a blog is no different from getting information from NPR, Bloomberg, CDC site, a fact check site, or the president.

Wowza. It’s actually violently different. Your 4th grade research teacher must be so disappointed.

Several doctors are also YouTubers. For example:

I think the issue here is he is relying on a meta-analysis of several weak and poorly set up studies. I read a review titles "Ivermectin: COVID-19 Miracle Cure or Cruel Hoax?", which produced this quote in the conclusions "

In quantitative sciences, that can only make sense if you know what the error bars are, and most of the studies cited byKory et al. are too weak even to know what the error bars are and even when the error is quantifiable, the studies measure different outcomes or compare different cases and controls."

Maybe future studies will show something different, but current data does not support Ivermectin as an effective treatment.

Harambe wrote:

The chart is from the same cranks behind IVMmeta and HCQmeta and other sites. Basically they cherry pick the most positive outcomes from dozens of crappy studies, forget to grade their evidence for trustworthiness entirely, and then somehow report that EVERYTHING works against COVID-19 with a straight face.

It's just standard p-hacking. With enough degrees of freedom you can build up incredible statistically significant relationships from noise alone.

this; As a physician, I have had several patients cite Dr. Cory's research...the studies as you mention are low quality and not evidence-based. Unfortunately with the internet he has gathered a pretty big following..

Hi Rojo,

First, for credentials, I'm a tenured PhD scientist at a Tier 1 research university. I'm not a virologist, but my lab uses recombinant virus for all kinds of things. I'm a competent molecular biologist and could design a covid test from scratch, including for specific variants.

Your question raises an important point, and really asks about the scientific method and how we evaluate evidence.

1) A random chart on the internet with an official looking graph is not evidence. Is not, is not, is not! What were the studies? Were they crap, were they legit? How does one know? Well it takes some work.

2) Good studies are published in credible peer review journals. For the chart you show to be legit, it would reference multiple studies in peer reviewed journals. Not junk journals, but good ones, with respectable impact factors.

3) Key findings, in this case a meta analysis, are repeatable. So for the chart to be accurate, the same meta analysis would need to be repeated by other epidemiologists and published in credible peer reviewed journals. It would need backing by multiple independent studies that had cleared peer review in respectable journals.

4 The above is the way science works. In most cases individuals who dispute this system claim to have special knowledge, or cite contradictory information out of context. **They are really challenging the scientific method at large. Kind of like the local jogger showing up and telling you how your ideas on aerobic conditioning are all wrong. $$You know, the guy that has the secret system speedwork only system that will turn someone into an Olympic 1500m finalist on 25 miles a week. You know it's wrong, but a less informed person might buy it. Anti vaxers are that guy.$$

5) So the the even bigger question is one of epistemology, knowledge, how does one even evaluate evidence? Is Joe Rogan the answer, or would you trust the consensus opinion of field of experts devoting their lives to understanding virology? Heck, although I could design a covid test and am more than capable of reading and understanding the primary literature, I still go to my virologist colleagues when I have key questions. I know enough to know they know things I don't.

6) Specifically on the point of ivermectin, there is no direct protection from covid. Tons of junk studies! Okay studies that do show a benefit were in populations with high parasite burdens. So real health benefits were likely from de worming. No effect and even harm in populations with low parasite burden. If you think you have parasite, ivermectin may help you;)

7) In my opinion? How can I know that without reviewing ever single study? I can't. But I do know that if the same conclusions aren't showing up in other meta analyses, it's already suspect. Think about it. This would be a huge deal! As competitive scientist I'm always looking for novelty, edge, the big finding, It's hard. And if something like this chart was supported by evidence, the best would be racing to be first and first to confirm. But the problem with the conspiracy theorist types is they are always looking for the special answer, the knowledge that makes them special instead of what 300 years of philosophy and science says is the best approximation of truth.

Cheers,

A guy who runs.

They don’t like when people ask questions Rojo. Just blindly follow their fake science.

The Great Barrington Declaration was garbage and in this regard, the scientist’s authoring it were in fact fringe. Much of the empirical data informing the declaration came from a study by Bhattacharya that was full of methodological flaws and widely panned by the scientific community expert in infectious disease epidemiology. Crap science happens all the time, even occasionally at the hands of credible scientists. The data and conclusions are written up and submitted for peer review. It’s evaluated and found lacking and kicked to the curb, or found to be incomplete and in need of refinement or it needs to be reproduced by others before it can be accepted. The GBD was not accepted because it had little or no scientific merit. It’s really that simple.