What’s with all these trolls on Instagram and Facebook who have never peer reviewed a paper or published a peer-reviewed paper who think results they aren’t peer reviewed need to be ignored?
These trolls most commonly say this to the 6-month results of the Pfizer vaccine trial!
Like what is your point, that the approval should be withdrawn because the data hasn’t been published in a peer-reviewed journal yet?
These trolls especially come out in full force to counter the fact that there was no mortality difference in the Pfizer trial (29 deaths, 3 due to COVID, even distribution among groups).
Like what’s going to happen in peer review? They’re going to find 15 extra COVID deaths in the placebo group that the trial investigators didn’t know about?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I wonder how this will compare to the 15 deaths in the vaccine group and the 14 deaths in the placebo group in the most recent results of the Pfizer vaccine trial.
Yes I realize there was a ~95% reduction in total and severe cases, and that observational data supports a reduction in mortality.
But this guy is listing drugs failing in RCTs despite working observationally as examples of how ivermectin could be discredited.
And for mortality, “borderline significant” is a hell of a lot better than the Pfizer trial’s results.
The fair comparison between the two is the trial results, not the observational data — unless we want to just give everyone ivermectin and see if it impacts mortality.
So I'm reading Apple, "Mothers and Medicine a Social History of Infant Feeding 1890-1950," and if we are wondering why our microbiome diversity might be inter-generationally devastated, it might have to do with the obsession early hospitals had with preventing infectious disease.
In early 20th century hospitalized births, the mothers would wear facemasks in some hospitals, and in most the nurses would sterilize their nipples when they would nurse with 35% alcohol or some such solution.
Women so trusted medical authority at this point that they modeled their entire nursing experience on their hospital experience. Many of them would sterilize their nipples with boric acid or whatever they had at home before and after nursing.
It just occurred to me that pibloktoq, a form of hysteria lasting days and sometimes ending in a coma, traditionally suffered by the Inuit, may in part be a vulnerability due to their low carbohydrate intake and presumably lower CO2 levels.
The most compelling explanation is it is due to hypocalcemia during the late winter and early spring in non-coastal populations without year-round access to dried fish and fish bone.
However, hypocalcemia is strongly influenced by CO2 levels, because CO2 provides a source of acidity, allowing H+ ions to compete with calcium ions for binding to albumin.
Is it possible to test blood CO2 at home? I couldn’t find anything.
Ok so I don’t think there is anything for blood, but searching Amazon for etCO2 (exhaled CO2) seems the best way to get breath capnometers (though it still manages to hijack the search with pulse oximeters!). However, these are insanely expensive ($>600, usually >$1000).
Unfortunately the purpose I want this for isn’t really worth that kind of money.
I was hoping someone had invented something analogous to a pulse ox that could use spectrophotometric properties to estimate blood levels.
“Breathe” by @MrJamesNestor has a fascinating story of how in 1958, a choir trainer who had worked with Grammy-winning opera singers, was asked by a hospital in NJ to work with emphysema patients to improve breathing.
He came to the emphysema ward and was shocked at the lack of appreciation of the physiology of breathing and that the nurses were keeping the patient’s backs arched with pillows, which hurt the depth of their exhalations.
He had them lie flat on their back, did manual work to loosen rigid muscles in their chest, trained them to hold their breath, and taught them to inhale and exhale very slowly.