Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Surgisphere, Trump, WHO, Lancelet, hydroxychloroquine n bullshitting Indian


Recommended Posts

Worthy of its own thread, as its such a massive fuck up.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/covid-19-surgisphere-who-world-health-organization-hydroxychloroquine

A Guardian investigation can reveal the US-based company Surgisphere, whose handful of employees appear to include a science fiction writer and an adult-content model, has provided data for multiple studies on Covid-19 co-authored by its chief executive, but has so far failed to adequately explain its data or methodology.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

the chief exec of this dodgy outfit previously had 3 malpractice suits brought against him according to the above article.  Oh and a failed kickstarter type campaign linked below - a wearable powerful computer that gets you into a state of flow.  And something about cryptocurrency mentioned in the guardian article.

What I'd like to know is why they were intent on bringing out study to discredit HCQ, who were the real paymasters?  And why was this lapped up so completely by most.  Would add the MSM but they have proved to me they are pretty inept these days so get a pass on being inherently inept right now anyway.

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/neurodynamics-flow-a-revolution-in-human-evolution#/

Edited by Dogtania
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spygirl said:

Worthy of its own thread, as its such a massive fuck up.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/covid-19-surgisphere-who-world-health-organization-hydroxychloroquine

A Guardian investigation can reveal the US-based company Surgisphere, whose handful of employees appear to include a science fiction writer and an adult-content model, has provided data for multiple studies on Covid-19 co-authored by its chief executive, but has so far failed to adequately explain its data or methodology.

have they been linked to the Democrats yet?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I turned the radio onto LBC a short while ago. They're broadcasting a DCMS committee hearing. Currently being questioned are representatives of Google, Farcebook and Twatter .The line of questioning is why are they not taking down sources of misinformation quickly enough.

In my opinion the premise is wrong. They should not be asking why they are not silencing posters quickly enough. They should be asking why they cannot encourage challenges to the misinformation. Everyone has an opinion, inevitably some will be closer to the truth than others. By seeking to censor or silence those who they disagree with it can only add to the feeling that they are co-conspirators rather than attempting to counter falsehoods with the truth.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/digital-culture-media-and-sport-committee/sub-committee-on-online-harms-and-disinformation/news/disinformation-covid-19-evidence-19-21/

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Long time lurking said:

We seem to be now living in a world of who shouts the loudest 

Or who makes the most politically expedient claim (until they get caught out as bullshitters in this case xD) This case certainly makes a mockery of media and government pushing the only listen to 'authoritative' sources like the WHO. Strangely enough MP Damien Collin's hilarious covid-19 fact checking site https://infotagion.com/ is yet to cover this story, maybe he was hoping an authoritative = bullshit story wouldn't emerge quite so quickly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, spygirl said:

The BBC radio had Trump taking hydrowhatsis on heavy rotation.

Every 5 minute there was a feature on it. - blah blah no medical proof .. . studies have shown ....etcc

Today.- Nothing. Nadah.Check website. Nothing on front page.

Nothing on coviid section.

 

I suspect that Corona has been co-opted,  wholesale, in the USA by the Dems and allies as a means of discrediting Trump, following the failure of impeachment. They must have thousands of people working full time on this, and plenty of allies across the pond who will do their bidding.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sleepwello'nights said:

I turned the radio onto LBC a short while ago. They're broadcasting a DCMS committee hearing. Currently being questioned are representatives of Google, Farcebook and Twatter .The line of questioning is why are they not taking down sources of misinformation quickly enough.

In my opinion the premise is wrong. They should not be asking why they are not silencing posters quickly enough. They should be asking why they cannot encourage challenges to the misinformation. Everyone has an opinion, inevitably some will be closer to the truth than others. By seeking to censor or silence those who they disagree with it can only add to the feeling that they are co-conspirators rather than attempting to counter falsehoods with the truth.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/digital-culture-media-and-sport-committee/sub-committee-on-online-harms-and-disinformation/news/disinformation-covid-19-evidence-19-21/

Biggest sources of misinformation have been governments and WHO,  masks don't work, wash you hands, no human to human transmission, not airborne. whoe lot of bollocks under the bridge and they seem to have got away with it whilst actively criticising others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Austin Allegro said:

I suspect that Corona has been co-opted,  wholesale, in the USA by the Dems and allies as a means of discrediting Trump, following the failure of impeachment. They must have thousands of people working full time on this, and plenty of allies across the pond who will do their bidding.

It's certainly being used as a "political tool".

Link to post
Share on other sites

WHO says it did not see Surgisphere data that halted virus drug trial

Authors retract Lancet and NEJM studies after company declines to transfer data sets

https://www.ft.com/content/9ac02bc4-465b-4734-a741-d714a04b477e



The World Health Organization’s chief scientist has said it did not see data collected by a US company called Surgisphere that is at the heart of controversy over coronavirus drug trials halted by the WHO.

The WHO said this week it would resume trials of hydroxychloroquine, an antimalarial drug, after pausing them following a study in The Lancet, a medical journal, which showed it had no benefit for virus patients and suggested it could be linked to increased mortality.

The Lancet study was retracted on Thursday by three of its authors, but not by the founder of Surgisphere, Sepan Desai, a co-author whose company provided data on which it was based.

Before the retraction, Soumya Swaminathan, the WHO’s chief scientist, told the Financial Times: “In hindsight, you can say maybe we should have asked for the database, we should have examined [it], but that's not normal, especially when it’s published in The Lancet.”

Or had a quick review of the paper and data. You know jsut to be sure that China andor Russia was not pulling a fast one.



Mandeep Mehra, a Harvard University doctor who was a co-author on that study, said: “It is now clear to me that in my hope to contribute this research during a time of great need, I did not do enough to ensure that the data source was appropriate for this use. For that, and for all the disruptions — both directly and indirectly — I am truly sorry.”

Another Indian. Funny that.

They need to take his medical cert of him. Or at least stop his cousin sitting  exams for anymore Indians.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Dr John did a vlog on another chloroquine trial, but the comments are more interesting ...

We should be shouting from the rooftops about this study for 2 reasons
(1) Only 4 people were hospitalised and none died which highlights the non-lethal nature of this illness. 
(2) Secondly, only 13% of people who were put in a high-risk environment contracted the disease which means this disease spreads less rapidly than first thought. 
With this new data, we should all sleep easy and John needs to rethink all the data and percentages he has been feeding you. 

Other than the great news about it's a pretty useless study.
John just because it's Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled doesn't make it a good study. Just a few things to consider. 
1. This is not a high-risk age group so why do the study?
2. Many people are asymptomatic so without antibody testing, you have no idea as to how many people actually contacted the disease which makes the data quite useless. 
3. Talking about Zn when it wasn’t part of the protocol highlights the poor science
4. All participants self-assessed which again is very poor science. To do a study like this with a product that is so politically charged is ridiculous. 

John you need to do a better analysis of junk science. Just like your analysis of the NIH study https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410
Instead of jumping from the rooftops because the study showed that patients on HCQ died 31% of the time compared to 65% of non HCQ patients. That alone makes this a miracle drug but instead, you preferred to praise the junk science. 
Come on you can do better. 

here is the analysis of this study if you want it 

Here are just 7 reasons why this study was designed to fail.
  
(1) First, the study is funded by the NIH. This is a “Fauci study” who has a vested interest in it not working. 
(2) The Study is using a “multivariable Cox model” with inverse probability weighting according to the propensity score, which allows for massive data manipulation. 
(3) it took up to “48 hours for 85.9% of patients to be treated. Why would you delay treatment?  The next point helps to explain why.   
(4) "Hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were more severely ill at baseline than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine" Yes this is written in the study. 
(5) No Zn was given with the HCQ. It is well established by many Drs treating patients that the HCQ allows for the movement of Zn into the cell which then stops the viral replication. 
(6) Death or Intubation endpoints are considered the same outcome, so even if they recovered after intubation they were still considered a negative outcome. 
(7) All patients in the HCQ group had more older, male and comorbidity patients. 
Note
In-fact if you look at the most important result hidden in the appendix Table S1 you would see that of all patients put on a ventilator only 32% of the HCQ and 65% of non HCQ died. Therefore HCQ halved the death rate of ventilated patients. This is an incredible result and yet it is not mentioned because the study is manipulated to fail 
Table S1 
                    HCQ /     No HCQ
Primary Outcome     262 /    84
Death                 157 /    75
Intubated             154/    26
Intubated then Death     49 /        17
Death after Intubation%. 31/    65

This study is a joke and doctor who references it should have their medical licence revoked. How was this allowed to be published?

Edited by snaga
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, snaga said:

Dr John did a vlog on another chloroquine trial, but the comments are more interesting ...

We should be shouting from the rooftops about this study for 2 reasons
(1) Only 4 people were hospitalised and none died which highlights the non-lethal nature of this illness. 
(2) Secondly, only 13% of people who were put in a high-risk environment contracted the disease which means this disease spreads less rapidly than first thought. 
With this new data, we should all sleep easy and John needs to rethink all the data and percentages he has been feeding you. 

Other than the great news about it's a pretty useless study.
John just because it's Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled doesn't make it a good study. Just a few things to consider. 
1. This is not a high-risk age group so why do the study?
2. Many people are asymptomatic so without antibody testing, you have no idea as to how many people actually contacted the disease which makes the data quite useless. 
3. Talking about Zn when it wasn’t part of the protocol highlights the poor science
4. All participants self-assessed which again is very poor science. To do a study like this with a product that is so politically charged is ridiculous. 

John you need to do a better analysis of junk science. Just like your analysis of the NIH study https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410
Instead of jumping from the rooftops because the study showed that patients on HCQ died 31% of the time compared to 65% of non HCQ patients. That alone makes this a miracle drug but instead, you preferred to praise the junk science. 
Come on you can do better. 

here is the analysis of this study if you want it 

Here are just 7 reasons why this study was designed to fail.
  
(1) First, the study is funded by the NIH. This is a “Fauci study” who has a vested interest in it not working. 
(2) The Study is using a “multivariable Cox model” with inverse probability weighting according to the propensity score, which allows for massive data manipulation. 
(3) it took up to “48 hours for 85.9% of patients to be treated. Why would you delay treatment?  The next point helps to explain why.   
(4) "Hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were more severely ill at baseline than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine" Yes this is written in the study. 
(5) No Zn was given with the HCQ. It is well established by many Drs treating patients that the HCQ allows for the movement of Zn into the cell which then stops the viral replication. 
(6) Death or Intubation endpoints are considered the same outcome, so even if they recovered after intubation they were still considered a negative outcome. 
(7) All patients in the HCQ group had more older, male and comorbidity patients. 
Note
In-fact if you look at the most important result hidden in the appendix Table S1 you would see that of all patients put on a ventilator only 32% of the HCQ and 65% of non HCQ died. Therefore HCQ halved the death rate of ventilated patients. This is an incredible result and yet it is not mentioned because the study is manipulated to fail 
Table S1 
                    HCQ /     No HCQ
Primary Outcome     262 /    84
Death                 157 /    75
Intubated             154/    26
Intubated then Death     49 /        17
Death after Intubation%. 31/    65

This study is a joke and doctor who references it should have their medical licence revoked. How was this allowed to be published?

Dr John is a teaching Nurse.

Medical Drs do fuck-all science. Nurses do even less so.

Chuck in any type of maths and they are lost.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, spygirl said:

Dr John is a teaching Nurse.

Medical Drs do fuck-all science. Nurses do even less so.

Chuck in any type of maths and they are lost.

 

 

I stopped watching him weeks ago as he didn't seem to be addressing the increasingly obvious fact that the epidemic was nowhere near as bad as it was supposed to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, spygirl said:

Dr John is a teaching Nurse.

Medical Drs do fuck-all science. Nurses do even less so.

Chuck in any type of maths and they are lost.

 

 

 

35 minutes ago, Austin Allegro said:

I stopped watching him weeks ago as he didn't seem to be addressing the increasingly obvious fact that the epidemic was nowhere near as bad as it was supposed to be.

 

I have failed to be impressed by Dr John - he is a dangerous baffoon IMO

He is certainly full of himself. I think he explains things at a level he understands them and then thinks "aren't I clever" and  then considers himself a sort of sage.

A little education can be a dangerous thing, however

The Medic that does MedCram is better, much better.

Edited by Hopeful
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Austin Allegro said:

I stopped watching him weeks ago as he didn't seem to be addressing the increasingly obvious fact that the epidemic was nowhere near as bad as it was supposed to be.

Medical professionals are just dumb technicians.

They diagnose, if you are lucky, then plod on with a procedure, no matter the medical outcome.

This isnt a bad thing - providing the diagnosis is correct/ballpark - you dont want urgent  medical producers to over-ananalysis.

However ... when things become complex, as they are wont to do with people, it can give pretty piss poor outcomes.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a quick check.

There is a BBC article, not that youd have seen it, as it wa filed away, somewhere.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52929916

Now compare the attention here to the attention given to Trump saying he was taking hydrowahtsis. Constant, repeated every 5 minutes, loads of comments, etc etc.

This story is *FAR* more important than what Trumps doing.

Youve got a large, international body, the WHO, under a Chinese bent cloud, and massive fuck up  where theHWO and The :Lancelt have just accepteds some crank study to prop up their flakey postion.

fucking nuts.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hopeful said:

 

 

I have failed to be impressed by Dr John - he is a dangerous baffoon IMO

He is certainly full of himself. I think he explains things at a level he understands them and then thinks "aren't I clever" and  then considers himself a sort of sage.

A little education can be a dangerous thing, however

The Medic that does MedCram is better, much better.

I agree, however Dr John did much to raise awareness back in January/February, it's just that he hasn't changed his thoughts as the situation has evolved. I still credit him with bringing research to our attention, pushing Vit D etc it's just that his analysis of the science is lacking, and he blindly trusts the paper's authors to be 100% ethical. rather naïve in these times.

But as I say, the comments are always good, and more insightful than Dr John.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

o

28 minutes ago, snaga said:

I agree, however Dr John did much to raise awareness back in January/February, it's just that he hasn't changed his thoughts as the situation has evolved. I still credit him with bringing research to our attention, pushing Vit D etc it's just that his analysis of the science is lacking, and he blindly trusts the paper's authors to be 100% ethical. rather naïve in these times.

But as I say, the comments are always good, and more insightful than Dr John.

 

At the beginning when he was describing testing for coronavirus he kept referring to the test as using the

Polyminerised chain rection

Of course, it's the polymerase chain reaction (PCR)

(He never said it correctly.)

An unusual mistake to make as the 'reaction' is so well known. The mistake grated with me and set alarm bells ringing as it suggested he was willing to speak on subjects using terminology and with an air of authority when he had little knowledge.

I agree he raised awareness with the public, but he gave an air of 'professorship' that was misleading and could give invalid reassurance IMO.

if you are going to create a public platform where you are looked to for advice, you have to get it right 100%.

I also noted he is trying to get donations as a result of his videos, which grates a bit too.

 

Edited by Hopeful
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Hopeful said:

o

 

At the beginning when he was describing testing for coronavirus he kept referring to the test as using the

Polyminerised chain rection

Of course, it's the polymerase chain reaction (PCR)

(He never said it correctly.)

An unusual mistake to make as the 'reaction' is so well known. The mistake grated with me and set alarm bells ringing as it suggested he was willing to speak on subjects using terminology and with an air of authority when he had little knowledge.

I agree he raised awareness with the public, but he gave an air of 'professorship' that was misleading and could give invalid reassurance IMO.

if you are going to create a public platform where you are looked to for advice, you have to get it right 100%.

I also noted he is trying to get donations as a result of his videos, which grates a bit too.

 

I suspect one of the main reasons for his popularity is because he speaks English in a very clearly understandable way (backed up by visual aids) making him much more understandable to non-native English speaking viewers than most journalists who gabble on and use strong regional accents, slang etc.

This is probably because in his work as a UK doctor of nursing he will have been teaching mostly non-native English speakers and having to simplify complex subjects to the level that, say, a 20 year old trainee nurse from Botswana can understand.

That's fine if you are explaining things like the importance of washing hands or sterilising needles etc, but perhaps not enough to make you an authority on a major politco-medical global conspiracy.

Edited by Austin Allegro
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8391779/Lancet-paper-warned-against-Covid-19-drug-flares-accusations-political-point-scoring.html

Along with Dr Amit Patel of the University of Utah and Dr Frank Ruschitzka of the University Hospital Zurich, Dr Mehra issued an apology to the Lancet.  

But since the retraction, Dr Mehra has not commented publicly, which raised eyebrows from a top scientist.  

Professor Karol Sikora, a former World Health Organisation director, told MailOnline: 'The problem I think in trying to sort it out is nobody's going to admit to anything. 

'The author's gone to ground, which is slightly unusual. You'd think he be out there.'

He added: 'I think there's some sort of scandal.' 

The fourth author, Dr Sapan Desai, CEO of the private company Surgisphere which compiled the data, has not spoken publicly.  

The reliability of Surgisphere has been picked apart in recent days, with more than 120 prominent scientists raising questions about the data used in the study.

Several of the company's handful of employees appear to be severely under-qualified. 

One, listed as the science editor, is a full-time science fiction writer while another, the marketing executive, is an adult model and events hostess, according to the Guardian.  

Since the paper was published by the Lancet, the research has been under outside review.

Surgisphere refused to transfer its data to the auditors, citing patient privacy, leading to the review to be cut short and the article retracted. 

'We can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources,' the authors wrote to The Lancet in their retraction. 

The Lancet itself has been accused of political partisanship after urging readers in a stinging editorial to vote out Trump.

Last month, it wrote: 'Americans must put a president in the White House come January, 2021, who will understand that public health should not be guided by partisan politics. 

Prof Chris Chambers, School of Psychology, Cardiff University Brain Research Imaging Centre, said last night: 'It is right that these articles were retracted. 

'However, the failure to resolve such basic concerns about the data during the course of normal peer review raises serious questions about the standard of editing at the Lancet and NEJM — ostensibly two of the world’s most prestigious medical journals. 

'If these journals take issues of reproducibility and scientific integrity as seriously as they claim, then they should forthwith submit themselves and their internal review processes to an independent inquiry.'

Link to post
Share on other sites

bbc now reporting again it doesn't work

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52937153

Not much data given on the study etc could be genuine??  Or is it another attempt to discredit the cheap alternative to something like remdesvir?  I'm pretty indifferent at this point but swing to the side that they are discrediting unduly.  Could be wrong but it's a sign of how cynical I have become recently.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...