[johnforbes]

Per Fauci, a new study in Science this month held promising findings for understanding why some individuals exposed to COVID-19 for the first time have a modest reaction...immune systems of roughly half of its subjects appeared to remember past exposure to other, prevalent coronaviruses, including variants of the common cold, equipping them to respond more quickly to a COVID-19 infection once it appeared. The findings also offer new insights that could help in developing a vaccine by looking at T cells which help fight the virus."

[johnforbes]

It is surprising that Clownslacker, who holds M.D. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Twitter, has not posted here.

[Clownkicker]

johnny, you didn't post any discussion or "thoughts" about your only-slightly-interesting factoid.

Why would anyone respond to a dimwit who obviously hasn't got a thought in his head about the things he posts?

When you DO have a thought, any thought at all, get back to us.

I'm always happy to enlighten the terminally stupid and help you out.


"...who holds M.D. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Twitter..."-johnflubs

I think you are mistaking me for Trump, dummy.

[johnforbes]

Slightly interesting?

Fauci -- your secular deity -- thought this was very interesting, and noted that it might help in developing a vaccine.

That is very interesting.

[Clownkicker]

"Fauci -- your secular deity..."-johnfibs

That is exactly the oposite of what I have been saying, dimwit. You're the one looking for "moral authority" in a public health official, not I. I have repeatedly told you I have accepted a pragmatic scientist with human flaws. Stop making up stupid shit about me and mischaracterizing what I post. If you can't quote me saying it, then I didn't say it, did I.


"...thought this was very interesting, and noted that it might help in developing a vaccine."-johnfoibles

Fauci should find it interesting. What's your point?

Science is not political. Politicians and partisan tools like you make things partisan.

So what does that factoid have to do with me or anyone else not in the vaccine or public health business, dummy? I don't research or manufacture vaccines so I don't waste my time on the esoteric aspects of vaccines. I'm not interested. It won't change my day to day life or change my behavior until researchers turn it into something. And then I don't really care how they got there. I only care if it's safe and effective.

And if that bit of information you posted doesn't lead to anything, then unlike you I didn't waste my time on it.

You posted an only-slightly-interesting factoid. Get over yourself.

It doesn't make Trump look good in any way. And it isn't the result of anything Trump has done.

[johnforbes]

My point that anything which might hasten a vaccine is interesting is this:

That anything which might hasten a vaccine is interesting.

[Clownkicker]

Yes, it is....to anyone developing a vaccine.

To the rest of us it is virtually meaningless and has no impact whatsoever on our behavior, our daily lives, our response to the pandemic, or our political opinions.

That makes it only-slightly-interesting.

[johnforbes]

It is of general interest because, across the globe, parents are debating whether kids can go to school.

People are wearing masks and using sanitizer religiously.

A vaccine would be of wide general interest.

[Clownkicker]

I hate to break it to you, johnny, but that factoid is NOT a vaccine. It is a factoid of interest only to those developing vaccines.

That bit of information hasn't changed your life any more than it has changed mine. You're just pissing away your time pretending it is relevant to the general population. It isn't. It is only-slightly-interesting.

That bit of information won't do a thing to help parents make the decision to send their kids to school next month. It won't help you decide to wash your hands more or less or wear a mask each day. It changes NOTHING beyond what might go on inside SOME research labs.

The rest of those labs developing vaccines won't change a thing about what they are doing to develop their vaccines. They already know how to develop vaccines. Vaccines mostly take time. ....Well, except for the Trump-supporting Russians, of course.

When Trump comes out crowing about how the Russian vaccine will miraculously make COVID-19 simply "go away" johnforbes will be first in line to get his shot so he can continue to act like a partisan asshole....up until the untested vaccine failshim, johnny catches COVID, and then dies while passing on more factoids about how the virus behaves.

[johnforbes]

All of the interesting questions remained unanswered until recently.

T cell cross reactivity may mean that some people can fight off covid19 better.

Other questions are:

What about the 2020 flu shot?

Did people who got flu previously, and/or prior flu shots, do better at resisting covid19?

Did old people who got pneumoccal shots better resist covid?

Follow the science.

[elklindo69]

Johnnie....

Trump was in a meeting with the research scientists from the vaccine manufacturers and they told Trump that the Flu vaccines are not effective against COVID-19.

The only effective treatment will be a vaccine.....specifically for COVID-19.

Period.

[johnforbes]

Yes, you need a specific vaccine.

However, the research on cross reactivity is fascinating (as Fauci said).

It suggested that perhaps a person might be better off had they had a cold or the flu within the past 5 years.

That might help explain why some people get the virus badly but some don't.

Follow the science.

[elklindo69]

Now all of a sudden....the global warming deniers and the people who say they should be teaching "intelligent design" in the schools are now telling us to follow the science?

LMFAO.

[johnforbes]

What is wrong with following the science?

I posted a link to an ongoing collection of HCQ studies, now numbering EIGHTY STUDIES.

Some show HCQ not effective, but most show HCQ works if given early but with far more mixed results late.

So around the globe scientists are working to find the truth, whatever that is, and so far it looks like HCQ works early.

[elklindo69]

No it doesn't Johnnie.....

You're just making up stupid shit as usual.

[johnforbes]

There are now 93 studies, and the thrust of them is that early HCQ works.

Why would Elkin or anybody else NOT follow the science?

[elklindo69]

You are just going around making stupid shit up. It's what you do. Nothing more than living in your Qanon alternate conspiracy reality.

Like like that "pizzagate" loonietard conspiracy theory claiming Hillary Clinton was running a sex trafficking ring out of the basement of a pizza parlor that does not have a basement. I hear that fucking nutcase who opened up in the pizza parlor with his assault rifle got 4 years in prison.

You people have got some serious mental health issues and should get some help.

[johnforbes]

There are now over 100 studies, and the thrust of them is that early HCQ works.

https://c19study.com/

[Clownkicker]

Yes, ONCE YOU ARE SICK, "early" treatment (on day 1, 2, or 3 of symptoms) may help SHORTEN the course of the illness. (As opposed to later treatment on days 4, 5, or 6 of your illness.)

HCQ does nothing as a prophylactic, which is what you are dishonestly trying to imply.

You keep saying "early HCQ" as if it is something relevant to lay people not in frontline health care delivery. It isn't. Lay people should not self-prescribe medications. If your doctor doesn't prescribe it, no one should take it. (And no, as I've told you over and over, Trump is not a doctor.)

No matter how many dishonest threads you start about HCQ, they won't change the unfortunate fact that HCQ is not a preventative.

[johnforbes]

I agree with the first part, but saying HCQ has no prophylactic effect is simply unknown.

Isn't it unavoidably true that these sorts of chemicals were known in the 1880s to have efficacy for respiratory problems?

I can't find the old shot booklet for tropical diseases I got, but we did get malaria pills which were surely related to what is now known as HCQ.

At this late date, we have almost TWO BILLION people who got early HCQ and their death rate was 75 percent lower.

Sure, it could be due to other factors, but that is a BIG lowering of death risk, eh?

[Clownkicker]

"I agree with the first part, but saying HCQ has no prophylactic effect is simply unknown."-johnflubs

Then stop pretending Trump was "right" about HCQ when he recklessly pushed it as a miracle cure for COVID, and that those against prescribing it willy-nilly are merely people with a partisan agenda against Trump.

You can now stop pretending we are on opposite sides of this issue because you just agreed with what I said, with what Fauci said, and what what Democrats said about HCQ.

As you just said, we don't have the science to support mass prescribing of the drug. Trump was talking out of his ass and putting Americans at risk.

Doesn't it feel good being non-partisan and following the science? It's a real kumbaya moment, ain't it?

[johnforbes]

Follow the science.

We now know that HCQ produces, over about 2.5 BILLION people, a 74 percent lower mortality rate if given early.

If given late, it seems unavailing (as with other therapeutic measures).

Trump was correct about HCQ, and Fauci (an expert in this) was wrong to dismiss it.

[Clownkicker]

"I agree with the first part, but saying HCQ has no prophylactic effect is simply unknown."-johnflubs

Now johnforbes is saying he lied when he made that statement and returns to his previous partisan lies.

You just said no one knows whether HCQ is an effective prophylactic, which is true. It's what Fauci said. It's what I said. It's what the entire scientific community said and then started dozens of now-failed studies to find out if it was.

It wasn't.

Now you are once again insisting, against all science, that it IS an effective prophylactic because Trump (an ignorant non-scientist) said so.

When will johnforbes learn to follow the science?

[johnforbes]

Again, follow the science.

Varieties of HCQ, with slight chemical differences, have been used for decades for prophylactic purposes for malaria.

This was part and parcel of tropical medicine as long ago as the 1930s.

This was intriguing all along, to anybody with an open mind, because malaria has some symptoms in common with covid, and reasonable people were curious all along about potential merit as a prophylactic.

[Clownkicker]

And again, johnforbes makes yet another post saying there is no science that shows HCQ is an effective prophylactic for COVID. Thank you.

So why does he keep pretending he disagrees with me and Fauci on this? He doesn't.

He agrees repeatedly with what I said but desperately tries to find phrasings that gives the impression Trump was right when he is objectively wrong, as johnforbes himself stated. Saying HCQ has any prophylactic effect is simply unknown.

[johnforbes]

As stated above, it is intriguing.

That is a different statement from saying there is evidence in articles x and y that HCQ is effective for prophylactic purposes.

But why were scientists such as Fauci so markedly uncurious about this?

Because Trump mentioned HCQ, and Fauci felt ORANGE MAN BAD, and Big Pharma could make no coin off HCQ.

[Clownkicker]

"But why were scientists such as Fauci so markedly uncurious about this?"-johnfibs

A dozen studies were started in this country alone by scientists, dummy. (One of them at my local University.) Some are still ongoing. That's because actual scientists were markedly curious about "this".

A number of them have been discontinued once it was found that there seemed to be no positive effect preventing COVID-19 by taking HCQ.

You know all this, but you are lying about it anyway. I don't know why. What's in it for you besides being a loyal partisan tool?

Are you hoping Trump will notice you and give you a job licking his boots or something?

[johnforbes]

Discontinuing a study is not a sign of a person being curious, but of a person NOT wanting further data.

My goal is to find out what therapy might work inasmuch as no vaccine is now available.

It would have been nice if Fauci and Birx, both purportedly scientists, were as curious, but they have not been.

[Clownkicker]

johnforbes is extremely curious. He wonders what happens to a horse's corpse when you continue to beat it.

Many wiser men stop beating a horse once they realize it's dead because their curiosity is satisfied. "Yup, it's dead. Time to stop wasting time beating it."

But johnforbes believes a truly curious person will just keep beating it until one can no longer raise one's arms any longer.

That's what johnforbes sees as actual "scientific curiosity". Apparently johnforbes really needs to satisfy his curiosity about how liquid the corpse can become if the beating continues. How else can he truly know it's dead?

Otherwise, if you don't continue with the pointless carcass beating exercise, you aren't really a scientist in his mind.

[johnforbes]

But it isn't flogging a dead horse.

Covid is still a global factor.

Whether HCQ works early (there is now massive evidence, from billions of people) that it reduces mortality by 74 percent.

Get covid and see if you think that is a boring issue.

[elklindo69]

Johnnie is in some Qanon Bizarro World alternate reality where there is some study where they studied the effect of hydroxychloroquine on billions of test subjects to determine how effective it is in treating COVID-19?

As I said before Johnnie...you should consider getting help.

[johnforbes]

Elkin, you are not listening or reading.

There are now 108 studies, from around the globe, on HCQ and its efficacy. Read them. Follow the science.

Second, 1.8 BILLION people got early HCQ and they had a 73 percent lower mortality rate.

[elklindo69]

There are no such studies Johnnie. You just made it all up.

As I said before...you should consider getting help.

[johnforbes]

118 studies now, and 71 of them peer-reviewed already:

https://c19study.com/

[elklindo69]

Apparently Trump was never treated with hydroxychloroquine.

According to Trump's doctors, they reviewed the literature and determined that hydroxychloroquine was not an appropriate treatment.