Do you need to vent about things COVID-19?

[Ceka Cianci]

hehehehe

I'm just kidding around! \o/

Sorta..

 

Here is something kind of funny  but also something kind of neat though too.. Since i started to bring Chia water to work and like expressing how good it is every time I take a drink, Because it is just that good.. I've started an epidemic of chia water drinkers at work..

Anytime someone new brings Chia water to work, It's like me in my Jeep on the road passing another Jeep..

We always wave at each other..  Chia water drinkers flag me down and point to their water jugs.. Like ,hey I'm in now too!

It seems to be taking off better than the smoothies and juices at work.. I think because it's just easier to make plus less expensive..

Either way, They are telling me they feel so much better at work and energized more as the work night goes by..

I'm just really glad they are drinking that and not walking around with sodas..

I had three different people come up to me last night saying how much they love Chia water with Lemon and Lime slices..

So it was a good night at work for me. I like seeing the guys getting into more things that are good for them.

 

Edited February 5, 2021 by Ceka Cianci

[Scylla Rhiadra]

16 minutes ago, Rat Luv said:

Is this real?? I'm watching now...it's amazing...

Of course it's real, Brittany.

[Rat Luv]

I'm dying 

 

[Amina Sopwith]

44 minutes ago, Rat Luv said:

Is this real?? I'm watching now...it's amazing...

ETA: This is completely nuts...

Yes, it's real. Ms Weaver was on Woman's Hour on Radio 4 too.

Nobody seems to have done anything with Glinda the Good/Wicked Witch of the West with it yet. I'll get on to it later.

ETA: My Photoshop skills are appalling, so if anyone could put Bernie Sanders into a still of the recording too, I would be very grateful. Thank you.

 

Edited February 5, 2021 by Amina Sopwith

[Ceka Cianci]

2 hours ago, Amina Sopwith said:

Oh God I needed this.

(Context.)

Omg, This is hilarious!!

I only first seen the picture, then seen people reacting to it, then finally seen the link to the video..hehehehe

[Amina Sopwith]

I did this one, it's better than Glinda. 

[Love Zhaoying]

23 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

On 2/4/2021 at 10:30 AM, Arielle Popstar said:

Should be using Colgate anyways as that has proven covid killing properties:

Recent studies conducted by Colgate-Palmolive suggest certain oral care products may play a role in temporarily reducing the amount of SARS-CoV-2 — the virus that causes COVID-19 — in your mouth. Laboratory tests found that specific kinds of toothpaste with zinc, stannous fluoride, or amine fluoride, as well as mouthwashes with cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), hydrogen peroxide, chlorhexidine, or stannous fluoride/amine fluoride, neutralized the virus by more than 99%. An initial clinical test performed pre-procedurally with COVID-19 positive patients showed certain mouthwashes with CPC plus zinc, hydrogen peroxide, or chlorhexidine significantly reduced the amount of virus in the mouth for up to 60 minutes after rinsing. 

https://www.colgate.com/en-us/oral-health/threats-to-dental-health/new-research-for-toothpaste-and-mouthwash-effects-on-covid-19-virus

Expand  

SARS = Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/does-mouthwash-kill-covid-19

The test results cited in your post can be both true and inconsequential.

Might the risk of COVID infection or spread for some people increase if they follow your ill researched advice, develop a false sense of confidence, and engage in riskier behavior?

ETA: 10 seconds of Googling produced this...

https://www.india.com/lifestyle/coronavirus-update-a-list-of-foods-items-that-can-kill-covid-19-causing-virus-4206178/

 

I dun getit, are we supposed to swallow, instead of just spitting, for the proposed Colgate / Palmolive solution?  And, do we need to gargle first?

[Love Zhaoying]

12 hours ago, FairreLilette said:

"The Trumps Are More Corrupt Than The Bidens"

Terrible title, we need one that isn't so obvious!

[Madelaine McMasters]

4 hours ago, Talligurl said:

It seems to me the argument is that there exist treatments that make the virus much less severe and much more survivable. Treatments that pharmaceutical companies could promote, which they refuse to, because the profits to be made are much higher than for a vaccine. I am not going to argue one side or the other here, since I do not trust eithet side.

There are indeed treatments that make COVID-19 more survivable. The medical community has been throwing the formulary at the virus with mixed results. Western medicine's reliance on lengthy controlled clinical trials frustrates those who want solutions yesterday. Lack of rigor in small ad-hoc studies concerns the regulatory bodies who want proven efficacy and safety. Everybody can find fault somewhere.

No doubt Big Pharma hasn't much interest in promoting things (generics) they don't make, that's capitalism. But there's also an issue with popularization of unproven/disproven medications by small actors who are no less driven by analytical incompetence and/or confounding motives.

I can't help but wonder if the rising efficacy of placebos isn't somehow related to all this. Politicization isn't something that can be focused, it permeates the mind. I suspect that political party affiliation affects the performance of various health care remedies.

I've yet to see any COVID-19 studies that factor in political affiliation.

;-).

Edited February 5, 2021 by Madelaine McMasters
Spelling and a repeated word you probably wouldn't have noticed.

[Madelaine McMasters]

47 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I dun getit, are we supposed to swallow, instead of just spitting, for the proposed Colgate / Palmolive solution?  And, do we need to gargle first?

If you want to kill the virus in your respiratory system (where it causes the trouble), I think you'd have to inhale the products.

Please do that in private, though it would be entertaining to watch, you're likely to expel significant quantities of virus during the resulting convulsive coughing fit.

Edited February 5, 2021 by Madelaine McMasters

[Qie Niangao]

26 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

There are indeed treatments that make COVID-19 more survivable. The medical community has been throwing the formulary at the virus with mixed results.

Yeah, I don't think I'm the only one disappointed by the so far fair-to-middling efficacy of monoclonal antibodies. They're probably the best stuff out there for those who do contract the virus, but they're far from a sure-fire cure. And they're certainly not inexpensive, so the dreaded Big Pharma would love them even more than vaccines -- if only they worked better. There are some distributed in the US but it's apparently very difficult to actually locate them except by mistake.

The antivirals (e.g., Remdesivir) never really justified high expectations in the first place. They've been around and used with AFAIK limited success against other viruses, except in vitro.

Edited February 5, 2021 by Qie Niangao

[FairreLilette]

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Terrible title, we need one that isn't so obvious!

Actually that title of the news article made me laugh..."The Trumps Are More Corrupt than The Bidens".   It sounds like something from kindergarten.  

Does anyone remember that song from a long time ago, "Sowing The Seeds of Love" by Tears For Fears...and the line that goes "and the politics of greed"?   Oh yeah that.  Um hum.  Like we're dumb or sumthin.

[Silent Mistwalker]

5 hours ago, Talligurl said:

It seems to me the argument is that there exist treatments that make the virus much less severe and much more survivable. Treatments that pharmaceutical companies could promote, which they refuse to, because the profits to be made are much higher than for a vaccine. I am not going to argue one side or the other here, since I do not trust eithet side.

I would have thought the profits from vaccines would be much higher than other "existing treatments" since more people trust vaccines and immunizations than don't.

[Talligurl]

32 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

I would have thought the profits from vaccines would be much higher than other "existing treatments" since more people trust vaccines and immunizations than don't.

Yeah what I typed wasnt what I meant, that word "than" shouldn't have been there. The vaccines are more profitable than the existing medicines, particularly since the existing medicines being around a long time can be produced by many companies who would have to compete on price, while the company that produces a vaccine, or any new medicine gets exclusive rights to it for a certian period of time.

Edited February 5, 2021 by Talligurl

[Madelaine McMasters]

36 minutes ago, Talligurl said:

Yeah what I typed wasnt what I meant, that word "than" shouldn't have been there. The vaccines are more profitable than the existing medicines, particularly since the existing medicines being around a long time can be produced by many companies who would have to compete on price, while the company that produces a vaccine, or any new medicine gets exclusive rights to it for a certian period of time.

No known medication eradicates COVID-19 in vivo. If one were discovered, it would still not confer immunity (those that do are called vaccines), leaving the patient potentially chronically dependent on the medication (big profit!) or eventually vulnerable to infection and in need of a vaccine (big profit!).

The global flu vaccine market is currently about $4 billion/yr. The global cold and flu supplements market is estimated to be $14 billion.

For many diseases, like diabetes, Big Pharma is more inclined to look for chronic management methods than cures. A cured customer is an ex-customer.

So far, existing medications haven't proven terribly useful. That won't stop pharma companies from making money off them. Hydroxychloroquine sales are expected to soar for years to come ($2.7B by 2029) as people, convinced it'll cure them of something, demand their physicians prescribe it.

The fairly unregulated nutraceutical industry, which has some big players (Archer Daniels Midland, Dupont, Cargill, BASF) and rivals the size and scope of the pharmaceutical industry, is making big money off things that often have no proven health value.

No matter which way you go, you run into big money.

Edited February 5, 2021 by Madelaine McMasters

[Rolig Loon]

16 minutes ago, Talligurl said:

The vaccines are more profitable than the existing medicines, particularly since the existing medicines being around a long time can be produced by many companies who would have to compete on price, while the company that produces a vaccine, or any new medicine gets exclusive rights to it for a certian period of time.

A vaccine is designed to keep you from catching a disease in the first place, or at least to bolster your body's defenses so that you can fight off its worst effects.  With luck, a vaccine's benefits persist for a long time.  Medicines that treat symptoms (lowering your temperature, opening your airways, reducing inflammation, deadening pain ...) are meant to help you get through an illness that you have already contracted.  They don't generally do anything to keep you from catching the disease next time, but they help you survive the current bout. 

Which is more profitable?  It all depends. Developing a vaccine takes a lot more work than developing a new cough syrup, so a company has to invest a lot more in staff and specialized facilities. The prize -- wiping out a disease or keeping it under control -- means that companies can charge more for the product, but their income is offset in part by those big up-front costs.  It doesn't take as much infrastructure to make a new cough medicine, and there are always plenty of coughing people. So, a company can pay off its R&D costs quickly and have a product that is always in demand. On the other hand, they often can't put a huge price tag on it because most people can get over a cough by just waiting it out. 

There are too many imponderable factors to make it easy to decide what sort of product  -- vaccine or treatment -- is likely to be most profitable.  The only thing that's certain is that there are always health risks out there. People will be looking for whatever reduces the risks or helps them survive them.

[Arielle Popstar]

23 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Worried by you expounding theories and facts about something as important as the pandemic without presenting so much as a shred of actual evidence? Well, yes . . . a bit.

Here's a thought . . . how about providing some information about the "dots" that you are connecting?

The only time I can remember rebutting your sources was when I offered a point-by-point refutation, which included actual citations and quotes, of two sources you'd cited. The abstracts you quoted were poorly constructed research questions -- I pointed out exactly why. And you had frankly misused them, quoting out of context, which I also noted with citations.

I have supplied sources on multiple occasions which were for the most part countered with an argument about not being from an accredited left wing site (Luna), not published or referred to in the Lancet or New England Journal (you) or had cherry picked statistical examples (Madelaine, you) used to discount hundreds of other studies pointing out the efficacy  of hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin etc when taken early after the onset of symptoms. https://c19ivermectin.com/ https://c19study.com/  https://hcqmeta.com/ . 

Your response here had me scratching my head in puzzlement at your comment after listing the benefits of a single dose of Ivermectin, ie reduced loss of taste and smell, reduced coughing, lower viral loads and lower IgG titers as well as a 5-fold less shortness of breath, your sage medical advice was "In other words, don't try this at home, kids." I'm sorry but I thought a reduction in symptoms especially those potentially leading to a trip to the ICU was a good thing. Well worth the potential side effect of some diarrhea don't you think? I honestly did not know how to respond to that post suspecting you were being facetious or I was missing something obvious that somehow proved Ivermectin was not a better option than no treatment at all for those with a Covid diagnosis.  Your own linked Lancet study seems to prove otherwise.

 

[Love Zhaoying]

COVID got me closer to Jesus, 'cause I'm on my knees!

Edited February 5, 2021 by Love Zhaoying
* Not really, don't worry

[Luna Bliss]

On 2/4/2021 at 1:24 PM, Ceka Cianci said:

It's a 400 ft drop off on one side of the trail in some spots and that's not hitting bottom yet..

omg...big cliffs in your back yard!  envious!

[Luna Bliss]

1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I have supplied sources on multiple occasions which were for the most part countered with an argument about not being from an accredited left wing site (Luna)

Absolutely wrong. Your sources have been dissed by me because they did not come from a SCIENTIFIC website....actual studies done by reputable experts published in reputable science journals.

It appears you equate science with 'left wing'.

[Luna Bliss]

1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I have supplied sources on multiple occasions which were for the most part countered with an argument about not being from an accredited left wing site (Luna), not published or referred to in the Lancet or New England Journal (you) or had cherry picked statistical examples (Madelaine, you) used to discount hundreds of other studies pointing out the efficacy  of hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin etc when taken early after the onset of symptoms. https://c19ivermectin.com/ https://c19study.com/  https://hcqmeta.com/ . 

Your response here had me scratching my head in puzzlement at your comment after listing the benefits of a single dose of Ivermectin, ie reduced loss of taste and smell, reduced coughing, lower viral loads and lower IgG titers as well as a 5-fold less shortness of breath, your sage medical advice was "In other words, don't try this at home, kids." I'm sorry but I thought a reduction in symptoms especially those potentially leading to a trip to the ICU was a good thing. Well worth the potential side effect of some diarrhea don't you think? I honestly did not know how to respond to that post suspecting you were being facetious or I was missing something obvious that somehow proved Ivermectin was not a better option than no treatment at all for those with a Covid diagnosis.  Your own linked Lancet study seems to prove otherwise.

 

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/lancet-retracts-surgispheres-study-on-hydroxychloroquine-67613

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/surgisphere-sows-confusion-about-another-unproven-covid19-drug-67635

Edited February 6, 2021 by Luna Bliss

[Ceka Cianci]

18 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

omg...big cliffs in your back yard!  envious!

I find all kinds of wild things back there.. You can get in spots where you can imagine yourself back in time..

Like with the slave walls I found back there, there are caves and even found a shack a few years back..

I still haven't gone in it.. hehehe

[Arielle Popstar]

7 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Absolutely wrong. Your sources have been dissed by me because they did not come from a SCIENTIFIC website....actual studies done by reputable experts published in reputable science journals.

It appears you equate science with 'left wing'.

A trail of locked threads wherein you were the most frequent poster contests that. A clear case where correlation equals causation.

7 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/lancet-retracts-surgispheres-study-on-hydroxychloroquine-67613

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/surgisphere-sows-confusion-about-another-unproven-covid19-drug-67635

Good call linking the retracted studies in the Lancet and NEJM that were nothing more then attempted political smear campaigns by casting doubt on the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine.

 

[Ceka Cianci]

15 hours ago, Amina Sopwith said:

I did this one, it's better than Glinda. 

I found this.. hehehe

 

Edited February 6, 2021 by Ceka Cianci

[Amina Sopwith]

2 hours ago, Ceka Cianci said:

I found this.. hehehe

 

From another folk song, Sing, John Ball: "Who'll be the lady, who will be the lord, when we are ruled by the love of one another...All shall be ruled by fellowship I say, all shall be ruled by the love of one another...."

Long live the day that is dawning!

Edited February 6, 2021 by Amina Sopwith