Writes Gina Kolata in "An Experimental Drug Protects Covid-19 Patients, Eli Lilly Claims/A so-called monoclonal antibody lowered blood levels of the coronavirus and prevented hospitalizations. The research has not yet been vetted by independent experts" (NYT).
I was trying to figure out why the headline is written to heighten skepticism and imagined that enthusiasm about a new drug is considered Trumpish.
Dr. Myron Cohen, director of the Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said he was impressed. “It’s exciting,” said Dr. Cohen, who was not involved in the study. The clinical trial appears to be rigorous, and the results are “really compelling.” Other companies, too, are developing monoclonal antibodies to combat the coronavirus, he noted: “This is the opening of a door.”...The article ends with this quote from Dr. Cohen: “For my wife and I, who are older and fatter — we are waiting for drugs like this so we can see our grandchildren.” I know there are bigger problems in this world, but: 1. Don't call your wife fat in the New York Times, and 2. Come on, you're a doctor, get the grammar right. (It's "for my wife and me," not "for my wife and I.")
In six months, Eli Lilly isolated an antibody from one of the first Covid-19 survivors, turned it into a drug and began a study, enrolling the first patients on June 17. “It was an all-out effort,” said Dr. Daniel Skovronsky, the company’s chief scientific officer. The goal was to enroll patients as soon as they were infected, but that meant accelerating the usual selection process. Trial sites administered rapid diagnostic tests and moved quickly to enroll eligible patients....
The investigators expected that their drug might produce a reduction in the amount of virus in patients’ blood. They did not anticipate a sharp reduction in patients who needed hospitalization. “This is the first time we have ever seen anything of this magnitude,” Dr. Skovronsky said....
Also from Eli Lilly: "Anti-inflammatory drug may shorten Covid-19 recovery time/Eli Lilly said it planned to discuss with regulators the possible emergency use of baricitinib for hospitalized Covid-19 patients" (Politico).
Posts
120 comments:
Don't call your wife fat in the New York Times
Maybe she’s old and he’s fat.
I appreciate an honest doctor.
Is there a photo of his wife? She might be 5'2" and 480lbs.
Not Rubenesque : )
"The article ends with this quote from Dr. Cohen: “For my wife and I, who are older and fatter — we are waiting for drugs like this so we can see our grandchildren.”"
Doc really knows how to charm the ladies.
but!
isn't That, The LAST THING WE WANT?
i mean, without the covid panicdemic; President Trump wins in a landslide!
We, as correct thinking people; need to suppress ALL knowledge of of this Horrible News!
If there is a cure; it means FOUR MORE YEARS!
Anything that hurts the virus helps Trump, that's why.
Think about that for a second.
In Dane Co., cases have spiked since the UW-Madison students came back, but in-patient and ICU numbers are flat. It's time to move on.
Senator Harris will immediately oppose any such use.
Myron Cohen ... as a kid I watched him on The Ed Sullivan Show. A great story teller. Who knew he was a doctor?
One thing for sure ... any good news on the Covid front is unwelcome to Leftists, to whom the end-all be-all is politics.
Lady, you are just too fat and too old to see your grandkids.
Does the article explain why is it a "so-called" monoclonal antibody? It sounds exactly like a monoclonal antibody.
Gina Kolata
"My definition of an intellectual is someone" who can read that name and not think of a pina colada.
Hmm. I seem to remember a treatment that has shown very good results when administered to those with mild to moderate disease, but that didn't have much of an effect on seriously ill patients. Oreo-something? No - Hydroxycookies or something.
And guess what, the studies that have shown Hydroxychloriquine etc. to be effective (and there HAVE been these studies) have been for the early stages. It was for the later stages, which no one claimed for to begin with that the "research" were saying failed.
But OrangeManBad™.
You can bet if hydroxychloroquine was still under patent, the press would have been touting it as a possible preventive/cure from the beginning because a drug company would have been aggressively marketing it to them. But instead it is a cheap generic, so it wasn't pushed by anyone but Trump, and you can't really say he pushed it, just mentioned it.
So what was the conclusion about HCQ+Zn+ZPAC in early treatment? I've read both that there is zero effect for patients, and that entire countries swear by the treatment and use it for everyone.
Come on, you're a doctor, get the grammar right. (It's "for my wife and me," not "for my wife and I.")
For many years, I have watched The Bachelor, where everyone always uses the grammatical construction for her and I.
The grammar for her and me is only for casual, conversational speech.
If, however, you are talking on national television or are talking to a journalist who might quote you in a national newspaper, then you speak more formally and say for her and I.
"get the grammar right. (It's "for my wife and me," not "for my wife and I.")"
No one who wants to sound intelligent uses "me" in those cases. They would rather misuse "I" than take the risk of not being seen as a member of the thinking class. "Myself" is also used when "me" would suffice.
Sometimes proper grammar doesn't get you into the club.
Every treatment so far shown to help coronavirus patients... is intended only for seriously ill hospitalized patients. Those with mild to moderate disease have had to wait and hope for the best.
False. https://swprs.org/on-the-treatment-of-covid-19/
Excellent thread on the virus and the nonsense of the lockdown approach
https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/1306220427182854145
If that comment was spoken, it could be parsed as grammatical. The "For..." could be an abandoned beginning of a sentence. Then "My wife and I" is the subject. For clarity, the subject is repeated as a pronoun after the parenthecial.
"[] My wife and I, who are older and fatter — We are waiting for drugs like this so we can see our grandchildren."
I think "wife and I" is correct.
Headline is completely untrue! HCQ is shown to be help mild cases (as well as to help prevent exposures from becoming illnesses) - in fact, a major complain of the HCQ proponents is that all of the highly publicized studies that show it is not effective were done on seriously ill people, none on mildly ill people - and it was apparently impossible to get anyone to study HCQ on mildly ill people.
All the HCQ people have is testimony of many many doctors who was it works on mildly ill people, and entire countries where HCQ is available OTC which have lower hospitalization/fatality rates!
Bullshit. You are supposed to start the hydroxychloroquine (HCQ/zinc/ azithromycin regimen as soon as suspect that become symptomatic. HCQ is given out routinely by doctors without pretesting--it is safe, having been used by MILLIONS since the 1930s. If you are going to be using it over your lifetime--for say rheumatoid arthritis--it is recommended that you get a blood test once a year to check on your liver function. My Mom took it for 20 years with no problems. Zinc at the doses used is harmless.
The highly-publicized VA study that purported to show HCQ was ineffective showed nothing of the sort. HCQ wasn’t administered until the patients were virtually on their deathbeds when research indicates it should be prescribed as soon as symptoms are apparent. Plus, HCQ was administered without azithromycin and zinc, which form the cocktail that makes it supremely effective. At-risk individuals need to receive the HCQ cocktail at the first sign of symptoms.
Plus, the clown doctors at the VA KNEW IT. Murder.
The Virology Journal – the official publication of Dr. Fauci’s National Institutes of Health – published what is now a blockbuster article on August 22, 2005, under the heading – get ready for this – “Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread.” Write the researchers, “We report…that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage.”
https://principia-scientific.org/fauci-knew-about-hcq-in-2005-nobody-needed-to-die/
Grammar. "The King And I" or "The King And Me"? Two different films.
Life's too short to be afraid of your grandchildren.
Good news. I think this is how we can re-open. Not by a CV-19 vaccine that will PREVENT the disease, but by medicines that damp down its deadly quality and reduce it to a bad flu.
BTW, strange how the Press has dropped the "We're all going to die" CV-19 narrative. I guess they finally realized the facts don't support it and they achieved their goal of vote by mail. The Big-10 is now going to play football to, the bitter tears of the sports writers who are still wailing "What about the children?".
"I was trying to figure out why the headline is written to heighten skepticism and imagined that enthusiasm about a new drug is considered Trumpish."
Correct.
Everything good must be denigrated by the left/LLR-left during the Age of Trump and in service to the Biden campaign.
Althouse, you might consider posting something on the army of attorneys and law firms the democraticals have already put in place to try and litigate their way out of defeat in Nov. Its becoming quite a story.
How easily they memory hole the Trump cocktail - hydroxychloroquine, zinc & antibiotics - recommended for patients with early diagnosis or mild symptoms.
Too cheap. Can't have that. Need new expensive drug with unknown side effects.
My 22 year-old stepson son announced Monday that he is no longer suffering from COVID. The moderate symptoms lasted less than ten days and were flu-like without a temperature spike. Loss of taste lasted for about three or four days.
He was tested but received no medical treatment because the doctor did not feel it was necessary. I guess that the medical establishment abandoned him right?
He was far more concerned with the sciatica he developed while laying in bed. I gave him some stretching exercises and advised moist, warm heat. His mother freaked out because she thought sciatica was a symptom of advancing COVID. Fortunately her brother is an MD and advised her otherwise. Her temporary panic is understandable, but what explains the craziness of the corporate media?
The treatment I received for my decidedly brutal encounter with COVID amounted to taking lots of Tylenol without taking so much that my liver would be damaged.
That was the extent of it.
And my symptoms were far worse than "mild to moderate." I was very sick.
I did go to the emergency room on the first day. I was rode into the hospital in a wheelchair because I was too sick and weak to walk. After testing me for flu and pneumonia, they sent me home, saying: take Tylenol.
Basically they were saying: gut it out.
I did. I hope I never have to through it again.
I've been on a monoclonal antibody for an automimmune related medical condition. They can be amazing drugs, very targeted modulation of the immune system relative to steroids and other alternatives, which basically boils down to similar reactions but none of the really bad side effects it seems. But expensive. Though compared to severe COVID treatment bills not bad, 1.5K-3K a shot for many I've heard of.
Most of the alternatives I'd been put on had very nasty side effects but were fairly cheap. This had basically none but was expensive and very new. Both seemed to work so I think more investigation and development in this area will be great.
It seems likely though that if these work cheaper and simpler steroids would too. And many of them are in common use, most of those nasty side effects related to prolonged usage for a long term issue like mine not a dose in COVID timeframes.
I still haven't seen a good study of HCQ, Zinc, and Azithromycin given together in normal doses as a treatment. Though a lot of trumpeting of studies of just one or two, sometimes in really high doses causing some issues. I suspect when the dust settles we'll find yes, expensive drugs do work and some cheap and widely available ones did too. That is if we can ever get honest enough, non-politicized treatment of the issue.
I wonder if Dr Cohen was excited about the study in Detroit that validated hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for the China Virus? His affiliation with UNC suggests probably not.
People need to ask in writing or in the presence of witnesses to be treated with hydroxychloroquine. Lays the groundwork for malpractice suits.
Don't call your wife fat in the New York Times
I fairness, he did include himself in the deprecation and they may have the kind of relationship where they're comically honest in public about one another's failings.
I took a lab course in immunology in college back in the mid 90s (1996, I think). I remember we went through the first phase of developing a monoclonal antibody harvested from mouse pancreas. I can't remember much about the spefics, but I seem to recall it involved graadually reducing a population of polyclonal cells. I recall the professor saying that in order to iterate through to get the monclonal antibody it would take a month and cost like $100k. This was back in the 90s though, so I don't doubt that it's come down in cost quite a bit by now.
Here is a good review of the evidence gathered so far for each treatment modalities by the British Medical Journal. It's a "living systematic review" which means they update it as new studies get published and reviewed. The nice thing about it is the graphic that shows quality of evidence and effectiveness for different outcomes - death, hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, duration of symptoms, etc. Hydroxychloroquine is one of the drugs that comes out looking fairly good for parameters that apply to early illness.
He didn’t say she was fat. He said she was fatter.
Sydney has it right. If a drug isn't a big coup for Pharma it won't be touted. In fact, it will be outlawed.
Incidentally, I visited with all my grandkids in WA this summer. And we didn't wear masks, either. But, then, I'm not fat...
It all sounds very good but it also sounds expensive.
This should bring to mind the combination of zinc and hydroxychloroquine. Zinc plus hydroxychloroquine is very inexpensive but otherwise Gina Kolata could have written a similar article about it, making similar claims of impact, except that in the case of zinc plus hydroxychloroquine there would be massively more studies supporting its use. We are talking in the hundreds of papers now, I believe, if we include the chloroquine studies and that drug's use against the SARS virus.
I just heard the other day, by the way, about a new study showing that when zinc plus hydroxychloroquine are given early in the course of an infection that they reduce hospitalizations by 73%. But I haven't read it.
What Charlie Currie said at 9:06. Also, I've been pretty convinced about the need to get vitamin D levels up in my blood, and I increased my vitamin supplement of D. It will (if I am right in my reading of the evidence) not protect from covid infection but will reduce the probability of serious symptoms of the disease once the virus is contracted.
RK said..."In Dane Co., cases have spiked since the UW-Madison students came back, but in-patient and ICU numbers are flat. It's time to move on."
True -- casedemic only at this point.
You're quite right, professor. Good news is pro-Trump; therefore, most journalistic outlets will treat good news as radioactive. Downplaying it, skepticism, is actually their version of positive spin.
As I was typing that, I thought, what sort of insane universe do we live in that that statement is not satire or hyperbole?
I reject the headline about no treatment for “mild to moderate” cases. I had a “moderate” case (sick 2 weeks with varied symptoms but no need to go to urgent care or the hospital) and my doctor prescribed dexamethasone along with Zithromax when I started to experience shortness of breath at 1 1/2 weeks. That’s when I started to recover. I don’t know if the drug(s) were responsible for my recovery but it’s quite likely. This apparently is a common treatment for a case like mine. Both drugs are available and inexpensive as well.
I appreciate an honest doctor.
Is there a photo of his wife? She might be 5'2" and 480lbs.
Here's a pic of the doc - I wouldn't call him "fat", just typical for his age.
mikee said...So what was the conclusion about HCQ+Zn+ZPAC in early treatment? I've read both that there is zero effect for patients, and that entire countries swear by the treatment and use it for everyone.
#metoo. I've seen knowledgeable professionals claim it is completely ineffective and unsupported by studies, and I've seen claims that it's use is widespread, including among doctors.
"An Experimental Drug Protects Covid-19 Patients, Eli Lilly Claims/A so-called monoclonal antibody lowered blood levels of the coronavirus and prevented hospitalizations. The research has not yet been vetted by independent experts"
A cautionary (and very wordy) headline. The tone may have nothing to do with Trumpishness. Modern Medicine has had enough disappointments with COVID the NYT might want to temper enthusiasm.
Remedesivir, testing, ventilators, and Astra-Zenica's vaccine have all been disappointing (never mind a six-month lockdown that hasn't put the virus to bed). Cheap hydroxycholoriquine still has a fan base. Modern Medicine desperately needs a win. If this drug is as effective as it is "exciting" it will be a Big Effing Deal.
I'm older and fatter than Brad Pitt but younger and thinner than Henry Kissinger. These are relative terms. Perhaps the good doctor was, in a modest way, claiming that he and his wife had attained the golden mean.....I wouldn't criticize anyone for screwing up who/whom in a conversational context. If it doesn't strike the ear wrong, give him a break.....On the plus side, he certainly sounds like someone in a secure marriage. I hope the wife isn't fooling around with the younger, thinner pool boy.
“ I think "wife and I" is correct.”
The way to tell which pronoun to use, is to drop out the second noun/pronoun. Is “for I” or “for me” proper? The latter, because “me” is the object of the preposition “for”. Thus, “for my wife and me” (and Ann, of course) is correct.
But in the guy’s defense, good writing skills have not always been a requirement for a career as a medical doctor. I remember kids in college, who ended up as such, struggling to pass the required freshman English class. They aced Bio and Chem, and that was what was really important back then.
Ah , the NYT! Which I despise, detest, and distrust!
I suspect that the good doctor spoke correctly but the NYT dumbed it down for their readers.
Which one is funded by Bill & Melinda Gates?
I think "wife and I" is correct.
#metoo, though it's an awkward sentence, which is not rare with spoken sentences; it has an extraneous "who".
I think he meant to say "For my wife and I are older and fatter and we are waiting for drugs like this so we can see our grandchildren,"
It's "For he's a jolly good fellow", not "For him's a jolly good fellow."
This seems like a big-pharma story when it suggests no other treatments were available.
Vitamin D along with Zinc seemed quite affective for many. And then HCQ, Z-Pak, and Zinc for those with mild symptoms.
Every treatment?! Vitamin D is also effective in early treatment. It seems to lower both infection rates and severity of symptoms:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2770157
https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2020/09/03/Vitamin-D-deficiency-raises-COVID-19-infection-risk-by-77-study-finds/7001599139929/
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(20)30268-0/fulltext
https://www.timesofisrael.com/vitamin-d-helps-the-body-fight-coronavirus-major-israeli-study-claims/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/health-news/more-evidence-that-lack-of-vitamin-d-is-linked-to-covid-19-severity/ar-BB15IhK8
https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2020/05/vitamin-d-appears-to-play-role-in-covid-19-mortality-rates/
This was known months and months ago. I was sending this protocol to worried friends back in May:
https://www.evms.edu/media/evms_public/departments/internal_medicine/EVMS_Critical_Care_COVID-19_Protocol.pdf
And a possible reason, in a new hypothesis for how Covid works: https://elemental.medium.com/a-supercomputer-analyzed-covid-19-and-an-interesting-new-theory-has-emerged-31cb8eba9d63
How do journalists supposedly covering this stuff not know this?!?
"you're a doctor, get the grammar right." You must not know that many doctors.
Sorry, Covid Karens will reject any and all cures or treatments that may be discovered during the reign of Bad Orange man.
Man...you're tougher on grammar than my old 4th grade teacher, Miss Bond. And as you can see, she's the one teacher I still remember.
I knew the grammar battle was lost a dozen years ago when Barack Obama thanked a crowd for the welcome given “to Michelle and I.” But it still rankles every single time.
>>“For my wife and I, who are older and fatter — we are waiting for drugs like this so we can see our grandchildren.”
2. Come on, you're a doctor, get the grammar right. (It's "for my wife and me," not "for my wife and I.")<<
Well, as long as we're diddling around with correcting his speech, what he really should have done is dropped the "For" and the first "we," and kept the "I."
“ For many years, I have watched The Bachelor, where everyone always uses the grammatical construction for her and I.
“The grammar for her and me is only for casual, conversational speech.
“If, however, you are talking on national television or are talking to a journalist who might quote you in a national newspaper, then you speak more formally and say for her and I.”
After 6 years of Latin, that just grates in my ears. “For” is a preposition. In Latin, prepositions take either the accusative or ablative case. They have been combined in English into, I believe, the objective case, which includes direct objects and objects of prepositions (the Latin distinction between the two cases never made much sense to me). Using the nominative case as the object of a preposition would likely get marked up in a law review article. I know no senior attorney marking up my work would ever have stood for it (instead, my last boss and I fought over the Oxford comma, and when punctuation went inside, or outside quotes).
"For my wife and I, who are older and fatter..."
Bruce Hayden,
Would it be correct to say, "For me, who is older and fatter..."? Would "For I, who am older and fatter..." be better?
I'm beginning to suspect the doctor's grammar might be okay given the mess the sentence is.
“ If that comment was spoken, it could be parsed as grammatical. The "For..." could be an abandoned beginning of a sentence. Then "My wife and I" is the subject. For clarity, the subject is repeated as a pronoun after the parenthecial.”
"[] My wife and I, who are older and fatter — We are waiting for drugs like this so we can see our grandchildren."
I think that is the problem - the “for” is not really supposed to be there, and wouldn’t be in a written document. I see the conversation written, and respond as I would to written English, where you use the objective case, and not the nominative case, for pronouns that are the objects of prepositions. But if you remove the “for”, “my wife and I” is revealed as the subject of the sentence, and thus the use of the nominative case would be correct. Except for ears like mine that hear “for” and expect objective case.
That is if we can ever get honest enough, non-politicized treatment of the issue.
Lots of politics. My wife had Covid in June and was quite ill but did not need a ventilator. Her two internists are convinced she had an aborted case because she takes HCQ for Rheumatoid arthritis. I mentioned something about it to my internist and he immediately scoffed. I am sure he is a Democrat and very stiff but a pretty good internist.
I am recently done with COVID, as are three other members of my family. No hospitalizations, no treatment available from the doctor. I asked specifically for the HCQ regimen the day I got my positive test and was told "no." I could have pursued it further, with a different doctor, but frankly I just wanted to take a nap. And so I did.
I wish the goals of research included treatments to shorten the duration of the time that you are contagious. And then to lessen the duration of the symptoms, too--like a Tamiflu. The average duration of "not feeling good" for us was about ten days, but it was a long-tail illness, with the last seven days or so a lingering fatigue combined with stomach upset. Most people aren't going to go to the hospital with this, but a way to shorten the communicable period, the "feeling bad" period, and the quarantine period would be great. And those things might help the economy get started back up again.
Maybe after the election.
If only there were a drug, say an older and well-tested, well-understood and widely available drug, with a decades-long track record and well-documented but relatively low-grade side effects, that could be used as part of a treatment program for patients that had low-grade or early-stage COVID-19.
And if only there were treatments that deployed this inexpensive drug with, say, easy-to-get basic Vitamins and minerals like Vitamin D3 and Zinc, or commonly-used antibiotics, which could enhance the beneficial effects of the drug in known ways to inhibit the severity of the virus maybe even on a cellular level. Why, it could transform the treatment of the disease that has the world's leaders screaming in terror with their hair on fire, while the rest of the world gets on with their lives. It might even shorten its reign and reduce its impact.
Why, such a treatment regimen might even be commonly used by health professionals as a prophylaxis measure to keep them healthy while treating patients.
But OrangeManBad™, so we'll just have to wait until they find a cure.
"Those with mild to moderate disease have had to wait and hope for the best."
WTF? They just had to wait for it to pass, like the minor flu it is for the vast majority of healthy adults.
I was going back and forth on this and I landed on "my wife and me". I was confused about the verb: the verb is that he and his wife are waiting.
He's trying to cram too many clauses in, while speaking off the cuff, and this is a disease of the educated.
You say "for me" or "as for me", not "for I" or "as for I", so he should have said "as for my wife and me".
"get the grammar right. (It's "for my wife and me," not "for my wife and I.")"
----------===========
isn't this locution aggravated by the stricture not to use "first person pronouns" first in any phrasing?
how many would say "for I and her" >>> not even a NARCISSIST like Trump
What next?
Althouse criticizing the Up With People singers?
Up! Up with people!
You meet 'em wherever you go
Up! Up with People!
They're the best kind of folks we know.
If more people were for people
All people ev'rywhere
There'd be a lot less people to worry about
And a lot more people who care.
Think about it: a "lot less people" could be read as either poor grammar, or calling them too fat.
"For my wife and I, who are older and fatter — we are waiting for drugs like this so we can see our grandchildren."
It's good to get these drugs but don't just sit around waiting. Do something you can do: Lose weight!
Michael K: Does your wife have any idea where she contracted the virus? And what is her blood type?
"Here's a pic of the doc - I wouldn't call him "fat", just typical for his age."
He didn't say he was fat, only "fatter." I guess that means on the fat side or tending toward fat. All the more reason to leave your wife out of it.
MikeR retorts: "you're a doctor, get the grammar right." You must not know that many doctors.
Yep. ;-)
"I think "wife and I" is correct."
"For" is a preposition there and he's used "I" as the object of a preposition. That's just plain wrong, and it's wrong in the overcorrection direction, so it's not like saying "who" when you should say "whom." You can in a colloquial way say "who" whenever it's technically correct to say "whom." It sounds more casual and less prissy. "Me" and "I" don't work like that. You can say "me" for "I" sometimes — notably "It's me" — but you don't want to substitute "I" for "me," as in "a girl like I."
“(instead, my last boss and I fought over the Oxford comma, and when punctuation went inside, or outside quotes).”
I should add some clarification here. My rule (the “Bruce Rule”) is that you put punctuation inside quotes if the punctuation were being copied and quoted. But you put the punctuation outside the quotes if they weren’t part of the quote. His rule, from when he edited law review, was that punctuation always went inside quotes. Stupid rule for stupid 25 year olds. Our big issue revolved around quotes within sentences that contained commas. If the comma was for the unquoted part of the sentence, I would put it outside the quotes, where it belonged - because it wasn’t part of the quoted material. Combining this with my insistence on using the Oxford comma, a lot of effort would be wasted every time we went back and forth editing documents, moving punctuation inside or outside quotes, and adding or removing commas, as we deemed absolutely necessary (which meant, quite frequently). Aggravating things, patent applications and especially patent prosecution inevitably require the use of a lot of both quotations and lists.
You don't need to study something for five years when you are seeing a 100% success rate. I've seen French and Italian doctors saying that on YouTube. Patients with asthma etc. take a bit longer to recover, but they eventually did. Proven safe drug with 90 years of data backing that up. All the shitbirds not giving at least zinc with HCQ need to face legal justice. All the shitbirds spreading lies about HCQ and zince nesd to as well. Coumo needs to be tried as a mass murderer.
MikeR said...
"you're a doctor, get the grammar right." You must not know that many doctors.
---------===========
FOR MORE BETTER >>>>>>>>>> learn how to write legible
MORE CURIOUSER >>>>>>>>>>> if doctor is fat and old how long has he (and many others) been mislocuting? do you ever stop saying "for X and me" if you had started off that way?
Here's another way to see the grammar problem. Combine him and his wife into one pronoun: "we." Try to say "For we... we are waiting..."
You'd know to say "For us..."
I do acknowledge the other use of "for" — as a conjunction — to mean something like "because." But I'm not hearing that meaning.
That's his best defense though.
I've been on a monoclonal antibody for an automimmune related medical condition. They can be amazing drugs, very targeted modulation of the immune system relative to steroids and other alternatives, which basically boils down to similar reactions but none of the really bad side effects it seems. But expensive. Though compared to severe COVID treatment bills not bad, 1.5K-3K a shot for many I've heard of.
My spouse has MS and was on Tysabri, which is humanized monoclonal antibody. Stops MS cold. Her neuro has observed how 'good' patients feel on it and there's evidence there's a suppression benefit long after you stop having therapy.
Downside of this type of therapy is the monkeying with your immune response. Immuno suppression can lead to deadly stuff like PML, even though it's rare...
The test of that defense is whether you imagine him pausing and regrouping and really intending to say: "For my wife and I are waiting for drugs like this so we can see our grandchildren."
Like the "For" in "For he's a jolly good fellow." Meaning: Because he's a jolly good fellow. Not meaning: For him, you know that guy, this song is for him. If you meant the "for" that way, you'd say "him."
I find it interesting how many people here have either had COVID-19, or are closely related to someone who has had it. You might think that some of those chiming in with their experiences with the disease were emboldened to speak here for the first time, because of their experiences, enlightening those of us who have not been close to anyone suffering from it (we live in a sparsely populated county with about a .3% infection rate). But a number of regulars, including some of the most vocal here, have spoken up. My question is whether or not we have lost some of our regulars to the disease. After all, many of us are in higher risk categories, due at least to our ages. The answer is probably unknowable, given the nature of the question.
Using "I" when "me" is correct comes from ignorance of grammar and usually amounts to, as a commenter up thread says, an effort to sound intellectual or educated. For those that are educated this mistake stands out like a turd in a punch bowl.
I'm no grammar expert, but I was taught the correct use of "I" and "me" by the great Sisters of St. Joseph, way back in the 1960's.
I was trying to figure out why the headline is written to heighten skepticism and imagined that enthusiasm about a new drug is considered Trumpish.
I know Orange Man eclipses all rational thought on all sides these days but try to remember independent verification of medical claims is Scientific Method 101.
Blogger Michael K said...
Lots of politics. My wife had Covid in June and was quite ill but did not need a ventilator. Her two internists are convinced she had an aborted case because she takes HCQ for Rheumatoid arthritis. I mentioned something about it to my internist and he immediately scoffed. I am sure he is a Democrat and very stiff but a pretty good internist.
I'm glad your wife recovered, Mike. Best Wishes!
A bit OT, from last night.
"I Am The Target": Silenced Chinese Virologist Tells Tucker COVID-19 Intentionally Released, CCP Trying To 'Disappear' Her. This is the article the Chinese, in particular, are trying to kill: Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route
I find the article strangely compelling. For one thing, one of the smartest guys I know, who is reflexively deep into TDS, and has done bioweapons research, initially took the position that the SARS-CoV-2 virus (that causes COVID-19) did not look like a bioweapon. He seemed to be of the belief that, at worst, the Chinese had utilized pushed evolution to create the coronavirus. Now he is saying that he had predicted the pathways laid out in the paper last summer.
This virus primarily utilizes ACE2 receptors to access the calls that it infects. Every mammalian species, at least, has species unique ACE2 receptors. Some are closer to ours (hACE2). Others less so. The mechanism to do so is found in the spike of a coronavirus. This, by necessity here, has to change when the virus crosses the species boundary. What SARS-CoV-2 apparently looks like genetically, as I understand it, is one of two bat coronaviruses (ZC45 and/or ZXC21) with parts of the SARS-CoV (original SARS) hACE2 specific spike replacing that of the bat virus. The problem with the forced evolution theory is that it would have left a residue, or fragments, of the mutations. There aren’t any. In short, SARS-CoV-2 Is too clean to have evolved naturally, even utilizing forced evolution. The alternative then, is that it was created by slicing and dicing pieces of different viruses (ZC45 and/or ZXC21 plus parts of the SARS-CoV spike), and then sewing them back together. The author then lays out how she believes the SARS-CoV-2 was constructed, with estimated times for each step. I expect that the next step is to be actual construction of the coronavirus, or at least something very close. She also suggests that the novel coronavirus may have been constructed to have an antidote.
If she is right (apparently no effective refutation of her theory yet), this may well be the smoking gun that shows the Chinese creation of SARS-CoV-2. The probable original source of the virus (ZC45 and/or ZXC21 coronaviruses) were both apparently discovered by a Chinese military virology lab (the author believes that sourcing was to hide the parties doing the genetic fabrication). They have the most extensive bat coronavirus repository in the world, and the most experience in manipulating and engineering them. And, probably the best in China is the Wuhan Virology Lab.
My theory, assuming this is accurate, is that SARS-CoV-2 was manufactured through genetic manipulation at the Wuhan Virology Lab, and through negligence, was inadvertently released into the population of Wuhan. I don’t think that it’s release was intentional, because if it had been, the Chinese likely would have picked somewhere else in the world, to direct attention away from themselves. They first tried to cover it up, esp from their bosses in Beijing, but also WHO, etc. But, being communists, their attempt was heavy handed and unsuccessful.
There are a number of ramifications, if this article is even close to being accurate. One is that Trump was right to crank up the sanctions against China, and induce companies not to be dependent on the for a major part of their supply chain. They were a bad actor here. They likely were doing genetic virology research that converted a bat coronavirus to a human one, then made it more virulent. They then allowed it to escape containment, infecting the word, and ultimately probably killing a couple million people. Definitely not a good world citizen.
Paraphrasing Seinfeld, this has become the Thread with Two Subjects. Hope my spelling and grammar are all right. Or is it alright?
My wife and me - just sounds wrong.
My wife and I - sounds correct.
Me and missuses
The Egg and I
My favorite wife
Take my wife, please
The Merry wives of Windsor.
Baricitinib is an FDA approved drug- it can already be prescribed by a doctor.
Bruce, right after the virus was made public there were several publications [or at least their abstracts] by Chinese virologists available online who shared the theory that this was clearly not a natural mutation and laid out the reasons why it could not be a natural mutation. The articles not-so-mysteriously disappeared, of course. And perhaps their authors. :-(
"Every treatment so far shown to help coronavirus patients is intended only for seriously ill hospitalized patients. Those with mild to moderate disease have had to wait and hope for the best."
This is basically false. We can quibble about which study to follow, but many studies with the hydroxychloroquine/Zinc treatment have shown good efficacy, and the ones that didn't were either those given to late stage sufferers or appear to be outright fabrications. Indeed, the evidentiary support for HCQ/Zn is much higher at this point than for the anti-body treatment discussed in the article.
And I hate to pop peoples' balloon here, but this monoclonal antibody treatment ain't going to be available for at least 2 years in anything other than an experimental setting.
Hurry the fuck up for we are waiting a treatment that can save our fat asses from the Covid-19 we will catch from little Todd.
This is good news. There's a plethora of good COVID news beyond the inescapable fact that the virus is dying out and few positive tests are resulting in hospitalization. Deaths per day continue to fall. But the most exciting news is probably the partial antibody developed by UPMC that works under all kinds of cool scenarios. You really need to read about it to see the great potential because it is the smallest molecule ever developed as an antibody so it goes anywhere in the body easily and once it attaches to the virus it brings it down. Somehow I doubt Trump will ever get the credit for creating the fast-track system used to develop therapeutics and vaccines for COVID. The versatility of the tiny antibody at UPMC is such that it also works on SARS, MERS and related viruses. So the results will benefit Americans going forward and may lead to a whole new class of nano drugs.
There was that quack Harvey Risch promoting them Hydroxy cookies.
He should stay in his lane, leave this to experts.
"For" is a preposition there and he's used "I" as the object of a preposition. That's just plain wrong
serious question
do people in other languages have these sort of arguments?
personally, i wouldn't know, as i'm still having problems with my EFL* classes
EFL* English as a First Language
HCQ acts as a border guard and should be administered early. Zn reduces viral viability through inhibition of reproduction insides infected cells. They are proven to work in vitro, and have been demonstrated to work in vivo with well-established, limited risk profiles.
"Azithromycin is known to stop the production of cytokines, a torrent of inflammatory mediators that trigger life-threatening lung inflammation in coronavirus patients. Azithromycin has also been shown to block the production of other viruses, such as the Zika and Ebola viruses."
- A Doctor Explains How Z-Pak Could Slay COVID-19
Early treatments (e.g. HCQ, Ivermectin) are, and have been, affordable and available.
Another consideration is proper characterization of transmission modes. The droplet theory doesn't work in warm, humid areas. The aerosol theory, and the submicron size of the virus, explains the ineffectiveness of paper and cloth masks. The low contact of infected individuals (e.g. cruise ship, nursing homes, locked down apartment complexes), implies a contact (e.g. fecal) spread.
Actual History:
Democrats: "we need a vaccine! Trump is mismanaging this!"
Trump: "We are going after a vaccine, hard"
Democrats: "Trump is pushing untested drugs!"
"My question is whether or not we have lost some of our regulars to the disease."
All those who've had it and are still here say "I" (or if you prefer, "Me").
I!
mikee said...
So what was the conclusion about HCQ+Zn+ZPAC in early treatment?
It works well, unless you hate Trump. Then is becomes a Trumpish plot against our precious bodily fluids
This should bring to mind the combination of zinc and hydroxychloroquine. Zinc plus hydroxychloroquine is very inexpensive but otherwise Gina Kolata could have written a similar article about it...
The main reason the MSM scorned HCQ was not because it was cheap, but because Trump spoke positively about it. Though the fact that it was cheap meant that the scorn and outright lies had to be overwhelming to scare people from using it (and to get idiot governors to prohibit it).
How confident are folks in their Covid test results?
“I cannot stress this enough,” warned Neil Cavuto about the anti-malaria drug the president has touted as a coronavirus cure, “this will kill you.”
D. D. Driver: Exactly my question! This is the second time I've seen that phrase, "so-called monoclonal antibody," in an article on COVID, and the other was also in either the NYT or the WaPo. It's a mystery to me. I am not a molecular biologist or biochemist, but my Dad is one (retired), and he spent a lot of the earlier part of his career on monoclonal antibodies. That's what they're called. "So-called" adds a vague ring of jiggery-pokery or flimflam to a perfectly neutral descriptor of a class of compounds. It can have no purpose but to alarmed the easily-alarmed and ignorant.
As for the grammar question, he could've saved all this hoo-ha by just saying "For my wife and myself, [...]"
"How confident are folks in their Covid test results?"
In my case, not very. My wife, who has 50 years of medical lab and patient treatment experience, was not happy with the procedures of the staff doing the testing. Several things, the biggest of which was not changing their gloves. They did use hand sanitizer on the gloves, but were lackadaisical about it.
I also only got moderately sick, which seems suspicious for someone with leukemia, but people's responses to this virus (which came from Chy-Na, BTW) have been all over the map, so maybe I shouldn't put too much stock in that. Bottom line, I have loosened my behavior somewhat, on the notion that I now have immunity, but still am pretty cautious.
Fat? Somebody say fat? Norm was just talking about Ruth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLzgHa82gJQ&feature=emb_logo
WTF happened to Cavuto? Did Trump insult him?
Remedesivir, testing, ventilators, and Astra-Zenica's vaccine have all been disappointing
This is not accurate. In a paper published a couple of weeks ago, a randomized Phase III study of severely ill patients with median age of 57 and with other aggravating conditions like hypertension and diabetes concluded that a 5 day treatment of remdesivir showed a statistically significant clinical status improvement over other patients after 11 days of standard care.
The AstraZeneca Phase III trial is the most promising vaccine candidate since it directly attacks the spike protein. It was briefly paused due to an unusual event but was continued shortly after the pause when it was concluded that the event was not caused by the vaccine. That is a common occurrence in clinical trials and is a regulatory requirement. It is a huge trial spanning a number of continents and tens of thousands of study subjects.
Fortunately, there are a number of promising candidates that come at the problem from many different angles. There is a very substantial basis to believe that things will look very much different a year from now.
- Krumhorn
stlcdr:
"Actual History:
Democrats: "we need a vaccine! Trump is mismanaging this!"
Trump: "We are going after a vaccine, hard"
Democrats: "Trump is pushing untested drugs!"
9/16/20, 12:34 PM"
Oh, its even better than that.
As of yesterday, the Official Position of the Democratical/LLR-lefty Party is that there has literally always been Peace in the Middle East!
Oh yeah, the democraticals also believe its now time to s***can the Nobel Peace Prize.
Also, the democraticals are Officially Cool with pedophilia....and post-birth abortion...and the killing of cops....and getting rid of the Constitution...and the attacking of people in their homes...and attacking the children of political opponents...and burning cities to the ground...and marxist government...and calling on the military to seize political power...and tearing down our entire history and replacing it with their marxist identity-based revised history...and racial quotas...and re-segregation...and "guilt" established by identity group and now White Supremacist facts and logic and reason.
Other than all that, the democraticals/LLR-lefties are quite "mainstream"......
Bruce Hayden said...
...
My theory, assuming this is accurate, is that SARS-CoV-2 was manufactured through genetic manipulation at the Wuhan Virology Lab, and through negligence, was inadvertently released into the population of Wuhan. I don’t think that it’s release was intentional, because if it had been, the Chinese likely would have picked somewhere else in the world, to direct attention away from themselves. They first tried to cover it up, esp from their bosses in Beijing, but also WHO, etc. But, being communists, their attempt was heavy handed and unsuccessful. ...
I remain firmly convinced that the covid that spread worldwide is one of the viruses released. The Chinese reaction in Wuhan- welding people into buildings, spraying disinfectants indiscriminately in the streets, etc, indicate that something far more deadly was released- and that because of it's deadliness, was easily contained and eliminated as a risk. Killing a bunch of Wuhan residents in the meanwhile, but it as contained in Wuhan.
The death count in Wuhan isn't known- and never will be. But from evidence that leaked out early, the percentage dead in Wuhan is far higher than anywhere else- and Occam's Razor says that the discrepancy in deaths is death from something else.
All study participants received remdesivir, a Gilead Sciences drug previously shown to reduce the time to recovery, defined as being well enough to leave the hospital, by four days on average.
I thought that remdesivir was just another useless drug touted by Trump.
"“I cannot stress this enough,” warned Neil Cavuto about the anti-malaria drug the president has touted as a coronavirus cure, “this will kill you.”
That’s pretty weird, since they have been giving it out like candy in the tropics for decades.
"The aerosol theory, and the submicron size of the virus, explains the ineffectiveness of paper and cloth masks. “
n.n. Please read this paper in Nature. Remember that this was written in April, and much has been learned since then. You are not usually so obtuse, but why don’t you explain to me why you maintain that masks are ineffective against aerosols after you are done. You seem pretty keen on putting forth the views that you then refuse to defend.
Shouldn’t take more than five seconds, you can read the rest of the paper if you doubt the findings.
Just look at figure 1, the first line, the one for coronavirus. Especially the last entry in the first liine, the number of virus particles detected with mask.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2?ContensisTextOnly=true
Or are you just trying to be popular around here and ignoring what the people who have the equipment to measure this stuff, and have done the experiments have shown.
Maybe Doc can tell me why I am wrong to believe that this demonstrates that masks work. I don’t like to wear masks either. Convince me with a rational argument. It looks like it has something to do with the static charge of a coronavirus, as flu and rhinoviruses go through a mask just as easily as they would a chain link fence.
Here's a pic of the doc - I wouldn't call him "fat", just typical for his age.
******************
That reminds me of the BMI figures our doctors slavishly refer to , no matter what your age.
I asked mine if she could point to ANY country where healthy and decently-fed people do not, on average, become heavier as they age.
"humina hmina humina..."
Anyone forced to diagram sentences in Miss Grundy's fifth grade English class would recognize that Althouse is correct on all fronts.
There's no better way to understand how the English language works than to have to parse a sentence, many sentences. Then many more.
There are many things that have been shown to reduce the risk of getting Covid-19, reducing the risk of being hospitalized if one gets the virus, and reducing the risk of requiring ICU if hospitalized. The problem is they are all inexpensive and drug companies won't make any money.
walter said...
“I cannot stress this enough,” warned Neil Cavuto about the anti-malaria drug the president has touted as a coronavirus cure, “this will kill you.”
Cavuto, aside from a severe case of TDS, has MS and might be mad that HCQ does not help MS.
The articles not-so-mysteriously disappeared, of course. And perhaps their authors. :-(
Tucker Carlson had one of the authors on his show. I am not virologist but she sounds reasonable.
Here is a version of the show.
mockturtle said...
Michael K: Does your wife have any idea where she contracted the virus? And what is her blood type?
She thinks it was a HVAC repairmen. She has high IGE immunodeficiency so has stayed pretty much quarantined.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30094507/
It's been treated well with a biological drug called Xolair.
Can we trust, at all, the number of deaths reported by Nigeria. For a country with 200 million, their numbers are REALLY low..
13 days ago I attended my Uncles funeral(non covid) in rural MN. Many who were there Aunts, Uncles, Cousins fell ill and tested positive in the days that followed. Fortunately my parents and siblings and I have seemed to have dodged it, somehow. I worry about my Aunt because she’s in her mid eighties. Seems like she’s progressing well at home. The docs put her on an antibiotic and large doses of prednisone which I had not heard was a normal course for covid, but if it keeps her out of the hospital then it’s all good.
What number of health care workers took HCQ prophylactically?
Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine Cut Death Rate Significantly in COVID-19 Patients, Henry Ford Health System Study Shows
"Treatment with hydroxychloroquine cut the death rate significantly in sick patients hospitalized with COVID-19 – and without heart-related side-effects, according to a new study published by Henry Ford Health System.
In a large-scale retrospective analysis of 2,541 patients hospitalized between March 10 and May 2, 2020 across the system’s six hospitals, the study found 13% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine alone died compared to 26.4% not treated with hydroxychloroquine. None of the patients had documented serious heart abnormalities; however, patients were monitored for a heart condition routinely pointed to as a reason to avoid the drug as a treatment for COVID-19.
The study was published today in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, the peer-reviewed, open-access online publication of the International Society of Infectious Diseases (ISID.org).
Patients treated with hydroxychloroquine at Henry Ford met specific protocol criteria as outlined by the hospital system’s Division of Infectious Diseases. The vast majority received the drug soon after admission; 82% within 24 hours and 91% within 48 hours of admission. All patients in the study were 18 or over with a median age of 64 years; 51% were men and 56% African American."
Don't blame the doctor for saying "my wife and I". He may have properly said "my wife and me", but the idiot reporter could have "corrected" him. Most reporters get most everything wrong, in my personal experience.
But I didn't follow the link, so I don't know if there was audio of the doctor saying this, or if he was just quoted in an article.
HCQ is clearly an effective outpatient treatment for patients with COVID symptoms.
But it's a $50 solution. No money to be made. Fauci won't get a cut because the NIH didn't "co-invent" it.
Fauci and the FDA are responsible for 100k deaths.
Post a Comment