Corona Virus

Ken.

 

Similar story here (not the vet bit) - been on vit d since August/September- the mrs takes it anyway for her MS

 

Been taking Vit D since 2015 and I can vouch for it's effectiveness. After having sinusitis several times over two winters plus tonsilitus three times over the same period then Henoch schonlein purpura, my GP suggested I take Vit D tablets to boost my immune system. I've had none of the aforementioned illnesses since.

 

"Seriously, Google it." The word oxymoron came immediately to mind when I read that.

I don't necessarily disagree with your comments about vitamin and mineral "treatments" or even "Big Pharma", Callumity, but to me "Seriously" and "Google it" don't belong in the same sentence fragment. Yeah, it's possible to find peer-reviewed published research on The Google available as full-text documents. But you still have to hunt. AND know what you're looking for. And what's available without having science journal subscription services is limited as well. But even if that weren't the case, the vast majority of people simply haven't had the training to be critical consumers of research. Part of the problem these days--far too many people think if they read on on the internet it must be true.

 

Hi Sandi, the Lancet had an article which was recommending large group trials of vit d back in August, but go on to say that due to the known benefits of vit d against respiratory issues vs potential harm of taking vit d ... they would recommend people take it anyway (paraphrasing a bit)

Pending results of such trials, it would seem uncontroversial to enthusiastically promote efforts to achieve reference nutrient intakes of vitamin D, which range from 400 IU/day in the UK to 600–800 IU/day in the USA. These are predicated on benefits of vitamin D for bone and muscle health, but there is a chance that their implementation might also reduce the impact of COVID-19 in populations where vitamin D deficiency is prevalent; there is nothing to lose from their implementation, and potentially much to gain.


https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(20)30268-0/fulltext

 

Thanks for this link, DCS. I know the Lancet and it definitely fits into the peer-review publications that I mentioned in my post. I actually started taking Vitamin D at the direction of my orthopedic surgeon and have continued taking it based on recommendations like those of the Lancet.

Apart from the comments on Vitamin C, D, zinc etc., I was actually making a broader point in my previous post about the myriad information available on The Google, some of which is factual and reputable and science-based and some of which is not. The key is knowing the difference. I know that there are many members on here who are very discerning consumers of research and information (and that definitely includes you, DCS). But unfortunately I don't know that I can say the same for the majority of the general public.

 

To be fair, Cal has made that point as well on numerous occasions...

 

As a useful research resource...

https://scholar.google.com/

 

Agreed...

I don't always follow some of the more political threads from nose to tail so I apologize if I've made it seem like the point hasn't previously been made. Honestly, that "usa elections" thread soured me a bit on following the more political threads on the forum. I get enough of that every day by virtue of living in the U.S., especially during this last presidential election. I also find it rather sad that I consider a thread called Corona Virus a political thread. Such is our world these days. Well, perhaps I could leave off the "these days" part of that last sentence.

 

Awesome! Thanks, @DCS222!

 

[

Sorry in advance, this is a reasonably long post, but the subject is complicated. And it isn’t a cut and paste.

The question of false positives - and therefore the accuracy of the daily statistics - is fundamentally important. Although the figure of 90% is quoted by some on here as if it were a mathematical proof which the scientific community are deliberately turning a blind eye to, it is not something which is anywhere near proven, provable, nor indeed probable in my view.

This link below analyses and refutes the claim of Mike Yeadon about 90% false positives.

https://healthfeedback.org/claimrev...he-pandemic-is-fundamentally-over-in-the-u-k/

Whether you agree with Dr Yeadon, are unsure, or think he’s mad there is a very good explanation of the uncertainties of the mathematics behind it and an interactive COVID-19 test modeller you can and should play with to see how different assumptions radically affect the conclusions drawn about false positives.

This piece, by Rachael Harker (a statistician in the House of Commons library specialising in health and social care) explains how Dr Yeadon’s 90% claim is rooted in a particular interpretation of the ONS COVID-19 population-testing data.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/covid-19-how-reliable-are-test-results/

Taken together they say to me that the certainty shown by the lockdown sceptics that there are 90% false positives is likely to be confirmation bias in action.

And for one simple reason. It is likely that the ONS sample is as close to a random sample as we are going to be able to find. Whereas the population taking the much-derided PCR tests is effectively a self-selected sample (and yes I of course accept that some will have been “ordered” or strongly recommended to get a test). “Self selected” based upon having some kind of COVID-like symptoms or being in close contact with someone who has. So, whatever the true rate of COVID infection is in the PCR-testing population, it is highly unlikely to be the same as that in the near-random ONS sample [indeed I can’t reasonably see how it can fail to be significantly higher, but some will refuse to accept that logic-leap].

Dr Yeadon’s 90% theory assumes that the actual prevalence in the PCR-tested population is the same as in the ONS survey (at that time 1 in 1,000).

As you’ll see if you read the two linked articles, particularly Rachel Harker’s piece, once you start to assume a different (higher) actual rate in the testing population then the percentage of false positives falls dramatically.

Furthermore Chris Whitby said today that the latest ONS figures estimated that 1 in 50 people in the population had COVID. At that level then, even if those taking the PCR test are no more likely to be infected than the population as a whole, Dr Yeadon’s 90% false positive claim falls to less than 50%.

And if 5% of those being PCR tested are actually infected - which certainly doesn’t feel unreasonable if 2% of the population are infected - then the false positive rate is likely to be 20% or less. Not great, but low enough that the shape of the graphs is meaningful, particularly as the false positive rate falls (and the accuracy of the data improves) with increasing infection rate.

 

On the subject of PCR tests...

The false positive issue is simple mathematics. It can be an issue if only a small percentage of the population is infected, or, more accurately, if the percentage of the population that is infected is close to the percentage of false positives that the test gives.

Kings College London - The Paradox of the False Positive




The other issue with PCR testing is that it can find true positives that are worthless. If you keep running the amplification cycle over and over again, you can have a positive result from an original quantity that was so insignificant that it was, effectively, non-existent.

Kary Mullis (inventor of PCR)



"with PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody"
"it allows you to take a very miniscule amount of anything and make it measurable, and then talk about it in meetings and stuff as if it is important"


Fauci



"if you get a cycle threshold (Ct) of 35 or more, the chances of it being replication competent are miniscule"

In other words, if the cycle has to be run more than 35 times in order to get a positive result, then the original fragment of virus RNA was so tiny that it did not represent an infection, let alone a "case".

 

Exactly. UK apparently runs 45 cycles but the other pernicious factor that takes it beyond mere statistics is the recruitment of amateur lab techs and voluminous testing in unsterile conditions. There is very significant scope for cross contamination.
I don’t think anyone is saying there is even a flat rate for false +ves. It is probably highly variable given the lash up labs and minimally trained staff. Lab experts, not HoC library statisticians, know real World factors invite serious concerns about quality control plus the use of the test itself. It was never intended as a diagnostic tool.

 

However, the stats produce graphs like this:



No natural biological process would produce such Regional uniformity. Remember being ahead or behind London etc? So who/what is manipulating the result?

 

Mrs Marky has been banging on about vit D to us for years and we take it as an oral spray. Although since this covid lark kicked off i give it 3 squirts as opposed to the normal 2. She gave everyone who gets a Christmas present from her a spray as well this year. Zinc is another one she bangs on about, which she has been taking since pregnancy (30+ years) as she was told it could reduce stretch marks. She/we had twins and she has zero stretch marks.
Vit C we get plenty in our diet but have started taking a tablet as well.

 

Why do you say that Cal?

 

If you look at how different regions were being locked down at different rates... what data was that based on

 

Can you explain to Figwold that epidemics don’t march in lockstep across every region of the UK.

 

Epidemics don’t march in lockstep across every region of the UK

 

And, just as nature abhors a vacuum and has no straight lines, wiggly snakes don’t lie down parallel to one another.