Covid-19 had us all fooled

Yooper

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
That is a real interesting article. Thank you for finding and posting. I'm going to see if I can find my Medium password, log in, and check out the bona fides of the author.

Okay, back to the article. Among the many interesting tidbits throughout I was struck how the SARS-CoV-2 virus binds to the hemoglobin "hemes"; an action that displaces the iron ions. The same as what I thought I remembered about blood agents. So of course my mind went immediately to bio-weapon. But then I brought myself back from the brink when (a) I reread some stuff about blood agents and while Arsine does work by this mechanism it's an old compound and was never used as a chemical weapon back when I was doing NBC stuff, (b) I remembered that carbon monoxide does the same thing and (c) as I read further in the article that this is what the malaria parasite apparently does. So not necessarily a bio-weapon. Schwoo.

But if the article is true, wow. Great find. Again, thank you.

--- End of line (MCP)
 
my-thyme

my-thyme

..if momma ain't happy...
Patron
Certainly does tie in with why the malaria drugs would be effective as a preventative/cure.
 
Clem72

Clem72

Well-Known Member
Agree, it sounds interesting. But literally no citations, no credentials, no reason given to trust the author. Often you can say that a message can stand on it's own merits and it doesn't matter what credentials or opinions or politics the author has, but if the message requires you to trust multiple different things that most of us are not equipped to independently verify (how virus works, how malaria drug works, how they might be related, how current treatments are wrong, etc.) then you need sources.
 
kom526

kom526

They call me ... Sarcasmo
Clem72 said:
Agree, it sounds interesting. But literally no citations, no credentials, no reason given to trust the author. Often you can say that a message can stand on it's own merits and it doesn't matter what credentials or opinions or politics the author has, but if the message requires you to trust multiple different things that most of us are not equipped to independently verify (how virus works, how malaria drug works, how they might be related, how current treatments are wrong, etc.) then you need sources.
Click to expand...
Brian Williams, "Sources, schmources. We don't need no stinking citations."
 
Ken King

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Clem72 said:
Agree, it sounds interesting. But literally no citations, no credentials, no reason given to trust the author. Often you can say that a message can stand on it's own merits and it doesn't matter what credentials or opinions or politics the author has, but if the message requires you to trust multiple different things that most of us are not equipped to independently verify (how virus works, how malaria drug works, how they might be related, how current treatments are wrong, etc.) then you need sources.
Click to expand...
Probably why Medium pulled the article. Other sites have continued it and even identified the author (Andrew Gaiziunas). I stumbled across this site and the author provides a link to what started his and his father's (a retired Dr) thesis on the matter.
 
Yooper

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
Ken King said:
Probably why Medium pulled the article. Other sites have continued it and even identified the author (Andrew Gaiziunas). I stumbled across this site and the author provides a link to what started his and his father's (a retired Dr) thesis on the matter.
Click to expand...
Great find; especially the smalldeadanimals link. The comments alone are worth it; as in, think the science is settled, re: COVD-19? Well, think again.

Now take this angle, add the epidemiological/transmission angle, add to that the political, economic, and social angles and we once again see why the question "what should he have done" was so hard to answer (and still is).

Again, thanks for posting, Ken! Cheers!

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Grumpy

Grumpy

Well-Known Member
Remember, when looking at data published by the CDC, to note this footnote "* Data include both confirmed and presumptive positive cases of COVID-19 "
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Grumpy said:
Remember, when looking at data published by the CDC, to note this footnote "* Data include both confirmed and presumptive positive cases of COVID-19 "
Click to expand...

Do they define what they mean by "presumptive" on that site? Does it mean confirmed and including the likelihood of false positives - or does it mean confirmed and "best guess"?
 
Grumpy

Grumpy

Well-Known Member
I see it as 'best guess', including 'best guesses' in data is sketchy as far as I am concerned.
 
Hessian

Hessian

Well-Known Member
I REALLY hope this info gets spread, discussed and tested. My father passed (2014) from a pre leukemia condition that expanded very rapidly. Drs were trying a little of this & that...and he had a DNR order. His lungs failed...not from pneumonia,...but from the iron-blood imbalance. This article may have cleared up exactly what went wrong. Thanks again for posting this...VERY informative.
 
Ken King

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
SamSpade said:
Do they define what they mean by "presumptive" on that site? Does it mean confirmed and including the likelihood of false positives - or does it mean confirmed and "best guess"?
Click to expand...
A Presumptive Positive case is those who have tested positive for COVID-19 at a state or local laboratory but have to have the diagnosis confirmed by the CDC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top