You want to hear this shit because it's better than the alternative: that treatment is still in development, a vaccine is still like a year away on the optimistic side, and there's probably no cure as a doctor would define it and you just have to outlive the infection. Those thoughts certainly scare me. And I would hope most others would understand why. Some of the outlier studies may turn out to be right, but the odds of that being so are not great. Science relies on a consensus derived from multiple data points. And I mean like ALLLLLL the data points. One of your videos, posted by a medical professional on their assessment of the virus and how it differs from the current community's consensus is still a single data point. And if they base their assessment on a single study, that one study is still a single data point.
This is not to say you can't tell bullshit when you see it. Rather, your argument leaps to conclusions in defiance of the current consensus. And compared to the data that formed the consensus, your evidence is looking a little unconvincing in comparison. I never became a biologist because I'm just another hirsute lug with a limited attention span. I do not have the temperament needed for lab or field work by any stretch. That said, I find it helpful to try to pick up enough about it as I go so that I can recognize just how much I still don't know. Like I said before, nobody is immune to Dunning-Krueger because you don't know what you don't know. But if you regularly remind yourself there's stuff you don't know, it's easier to keep perspective.
Said it before, say it again: It's not enough to wear the mantle of Galileo. You have to be right.
What is the current consensus? You probably wouldn't think that hydroxychloroquine is being used as a treatment (due to how politicized it has been in the US) but the hospital in Spain that did the Vitamin D trial (which are continuing to do it so more data will be coming soon) treats Covid patients with hydroxychloroquine as a standard treatment. I most likely already had Covid so me trying to find a treatment for myself isn't anything I really care about, though helping friends and family if anyone gets it is useful. Also, everything that I have been recommending (from other doctors) is not harmful to take; if it works, that's cool; if it doesn't, it's not going to harm you. Just looking at the hard numbers of the death rates, I already know that for myself, the virus is less deadly than driving to work so again, the virus doesn't scare me much at all, driving is a higher priority fear than the virus. Also, if you look at the hospitalization rates and deaths rates now per say 1,000 infections, they have plummeted across pretty much every country. And, those numbers are all before any possible treatments that I've found that reduce those numbers even more. I most likely have jumped too hard on Vitamin D treatment but every single bit a data over months that we have with regards to Vitamin D all points to the same thing (that it's very important). I totally wasn't expecting Vitamin D treatment (post infection and especially post person needing to go to the hospital) to be anything that would work too well as I was expecting it would be too late for it to work. I expected it to work proactively but not as a treatment.
Yes, it actually is. If you don't know, " shop talk" then you don't know enough about the subject you are discussing to be able to give educated advice on it. You keep telling everyone they are wrong and you are right and using examples that have not been peer reviewed. That is why " armchair medical advice" is universally condemned, even among those in the medical and scientific community who disagree among themselves. Just so you understand, we have studies that show us all sorts of amazing things that turn out to be inaccurate and lack an ability to replicate those results. You put too much faith in some Youtube videos. If this were accurate, you would be hearing about it all over the news in every nation on earth right now. You are not hearing this everywhere because the way you are presenting it isn't accurate. AND please, I am tired of hearing about Somalis in Sweden. We have much larger studies that have much larger Somali populations that are more relevant than this small study in Sweden. We ALREADY understand the impact of vitamin D deficiencies, that is not new information. People are already being treated with vitamin D and the rest of their daily nutritional requirements while they are in the hospital, this is not as relevant as you think it is to their patient outcomes. It isn't like we haven't ALREADY been giving patients vitamin D this entire time or something. That was already happening, even in the patients that died.
The study that says SARS grants Covid immunity is peer reviewed but apparently you don't pay attention to my sources and just hand wave them away. I'm NOT telling anyone that I AM RIGHT and THEY ARE WRONG, I'm telling them these DOCTORS that are EXPERTS are probably RIGHT. You're not arguing with me when you say a SARS vaccine (if we had one) wouldn't work for Covid, you're arguing with Dr. Peter Hotez and also the fact that SARS does grant Covid immunity. I'm not giving "armchair medical advice", I'm telling people the advice that doctors are giving.
What kind of Vitamin D do people get when normally treated? And what dose of Vitamin D do they give? when compared to the Vitamin D trial.
And I keep talking about the groups like the Somali Swedes because you keep claiming they could be deficient due to lack of oxygen during infection; however, they've all been known to already be Vitamin D deficient. Plus, if Vitamin D is something they're naturally given during treatment, then how is the lack of oxygen making them deficient at death when they're getting it at the hospital? Your line of logic doesn't add up.
Also, you always fail to answer my questions. Why would you post about Covid having 30+ strains if not to mislead people? What was the point of posting that when all it would do is lead people to believe it would be another flu (when it has the opposite properties of the flu with regards to replication)?
You have been saying that "it seems" people can get reinfected after 3 months, that is not accurate and against ALL the data we have on the virus. Also, the paper that says someone got reinfected is NOT PEER REVIEWED. Why are you allowed to talk about stuff that isn't peer reviewed and I'm not allow to talk about stuff that is peer reviewed? IIRC it's like 8 or 9% of people don't develop anti-bodies (which the guy in question did not on his 1st infection) so those people getting reinfected doesn't mean much to how long lasting the immunity is. The stuff I have posted about the virus months ago has been pretty much all inline with the most current data we have today.
USA
