So this talk of vitamins has me curious: is it possible to OD on shelf vitamins? Like if you just devoured the bottle what would that do to you?
Generally (very broadly speaking), you can overdose much more easily on fat soluble vitamins, and water soluble vitamins are very hard to overdose on - because the body has a very effective water removal system
This also means fat soluble vitamins are stored much more easily, so your body basically has them on hand and you only need to replenish them from time to time -
Water soluble vitamins are gone very fast on the other hand and generally need to be replenished more often.
Don't take this as advice for your diet though, this is just a very broad overview
So this talk of vitamins has me curious: is it possible to OD on shelf vitamins? Like if you just devoured the bottle what would that do to you?
A lot of it takes a sustained amount of way too much, but usually you just piss out the remainder
Pretty much. Take vitamin D. It's a fat soluble vitamin, so in order to get any from supplements you generally need to take it in alongside fat. The RDI is going to vary between about 600 IU to 1,000 IU per day. 4,000 IU per day is typically cited as a "take no more than this daily" line. But under some circumstances, a person might be given a bolus dose of vitamin D of up to 60,000 IU.
Basically, don't overdo it, but also don't worry if you take three vitamin tablets instead of two.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
I think this vitamin stuff is a faulty connection. Sickly people tend to have low vitamin D, sickly people are more likely to die of Covid. But they have low vitamin D because their health does not allow them to get out in the sunshine a lot, rather than low vitamin D making them unhealthy.
I take vitamin D because I'm a nerd that spends too much time indoors, not because I think it'll make me immune to covid.
I feel kinda miserable today. I have a slight headache but mostly my entire body feels like lead. This has been the case since before I even got the booster and flu shot but today I can literally only shamble around my home. I dunno how I'm gonna make it through the work day.
That's me boostlu'd or floostered. The vaccination centre was hoaching. Kinda stressful honestly. That was the most people I've been around for ages. Absolutely hoaching.
Pfizer pill held up in testing better than mervck one. 89% effective. Details in article. They say they could get out 200k by end of this year and 80 mil next year. Of course still needs to be reviewed.
Jubal77 on
+22
Options
TetraNitroCubaneThe DjinneratorAt the bottom of a bottleRegistered Userregular
edited December 2021
Glad to see that Pfizer's therapy is a dual-agent once-daily pill, rather than Merck's single-agent pill. Merck is just begging for mutations and resistance with that strategy, and honestly it's a supremely bad idea.
The difficulties of antivirals to treat respiratory viral infections persist, but this latest data is extremely heartening, regardless.
Edit: Additional good news, if Pfizer's therapy holds up: They're already licensing it out to generic manufacturers across the world. That could mean an extremely big bump in manufacturing. That might be factored into their 80 million number, but I think that 80 million actually represents Pfizer's production capacity alone. That'd mean good things for getting it out there.
Yesterday, when I got my shots, I asked the pharmacist about the whole 2-week waiting period thing and she said "you should be back up to 95% protected already."
Thoughts?
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
Yesterday, when I got my shots, I asked the pharmacist about the whole 2-week waiting period thing and she said "you should be back up to 95% protected already."
Thoughts?
Instantly? Or even within an hour or two? No way at all, your immune system just doesn't work that fast. But possibly within a few days, at least for most of the effectiveness. Your body already has those specific antibodies up and running actively and ramping up production is faster and easier than finding the winning combo in the first place.
I still wouldn't think the full 95% efficacy kicks in until that specific immune response kicks in a couple weeks later, though.
Yesterday, when I got my shots, I asked the pharmacist about the whole 2-week waiting period thing and she said "you should be back up to 95% protected already."
Thoughts?
Instantly? Or even within an hour or two? No way at all, your immune system just doesn't work that fast. But possibly within a few days, at least for most of the effectiveness. Your body already has those specific antibodies up and running actively and ramping up production is faster and easier than finding the winning combo in the first place.
I still wouldn't think the full 95% efficacy kicks in until that specific immune response kicks in a couple weeks later, though.
1% of my town has an active covid case. Which, those are the people identified with it. I can see how getting an estimate for, "What % of people get covid but don't get tested" would be difficult, but seems not good.
Yesterday, when I got my shots, I asked the pharmacist about the whole 2-week waiting period thing and she said "you should be back up to 95% protected already."
Thoughts?
Instantly? Or even within an hour or two? No way at all, your immune system just doesn't work that fast. But possibly within a few days, at least for most of the effectiveness. Your body already has those specific antibodies up and running actively and ramping up production is faster and easier than finding the winning combo in the first place.
I still wouldn't think the full 95% efficacy kicks in until that specific immune response kicks in a couple weeks later, though.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Right after you get the shot your immune system starts ramping up at a rate that's probably at least as fast as you would be if you were infected with the real virus. If you did get infected at some point in the next few days, I'd think the virus would just get steamrolled before it has a chance to get established?
I think it's a useful fiction that you are completely protected the moment you get the shot, as most people aren't likely to do something nerdy like keep track of 2 weeks after last shot. Just give them the shot and tell them they are safe.
I don't see how "your body needs ~2 weeks to get things sorted out" is complicated, and I don't agree that it's a "useful fiction".
We don't need people getting a jab and then (barring feeling under the weather from a reaction) wandering into increasingly risky behaviours where permitted. Attending large parties or seeing vulnerable friends/family.
We saw with all the bullshit around masks (that persists to this day) that the public at large is not good with nuance, but we're not talking some recursive fractal advanced calculus or something.
"You've had your shot, it's not a magic shield, please rest up if possible, and your body needs some time to take these instructions and turn it into something actionable in the event you come into contact with the actual virus."
I'm not a doc and am spitballing off the cuff, but the point I'm trying to make is that it's not complicated (even by the public's standards) and that being fast and loose just feeds into the assholes looking to drive wedges into society.
It doesn't need to be an exhaustively researched paper that the patient won't read, but surely medically trained folks can present that in a streamlined yet fact based manner.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Yesterday, when I got my shots, I asked the pharmacist about the whole 2-week waiting period thing and she said "you should be back up to 95% protected already."
Thoughts?
Instantly? Or even within an hour or two? No way at all, your immune system just doesn't work that fast. But possibly within a few days, at least for most of the effectiveness. Your body already has those specific antibodies up and running actively and ramping up production is faster and easier than finding the winning combo in the first place.
I still wouldn't think the full 95% efficacy kicks in until that specific immune response kicks in a couple weeks later, though.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Right after you get the shot your immune system starts ramping up at a rate that's probably at least as fast as you would be if you were infected with the real virus. If you did get infected at some point in the next few days, I'd think the virus would just get steamrolled before it has a chance to get established?
No it takes a few days, the timepoints are going to vary by study design but usually you're only going to measure antibody titer every 7 days. The more frequent draws are when you're trying to do pharmacokinetics too.
0
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
Moderna booster get. Officially part of the PPM team.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
Yesterday, when I got my shots, I asked the pharmacist about the whole 2-week waiting period thing and she said "you should be back up to 95% protected already."
Thoughts?
Instantly? Or even within an hour or two? No way at all, your immune system just doesn't work that fast. But possibly within a few days, at least for most of the effectiveness. Your body already has those specific antibodies up and running actively and ramping up production is faster and easier than finding the winning combo in the first place.
I still wouldn't think the full 95% efficacy kicks in until that specific immune response kicks in a couple weeks later, though.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Right after you get the shot your immune system starts ramping up at a rate that's probably at least as fast as you would be if you were infected with the real virus. If you did get infected at some point in the next few days, I'd think the virus would just get steamrolled before it has a chance to get established?
The body will tackle the target proteins with the available antibodies already present (which are now at a reduced level compared to the high point following original vaccination), but there's still going to be proteins left over from that. If it were a virus, that would mean a chance it still gets to establish and infect. In the case of vaccine, those extra proteins are going to kick off the standard immune response (fast generic antibodies, then specific antibodies in about two weeks). The specific response is what ramps the body up to full-on warfare mode; the high point of that is the point of falloff in the following months as it's not resource-efficient for the immune system to endlessly produce a maximum response to one antigen (this would collapse the immune system really fast).
There are parts of the immune response that are faster (such as elevating body temperature, which can happen within a matter of hours), but the actual strong immune response is going to take a couple weeks to kick out those good, specific antibodies for maximum effectiveness.
One of the main articles used as evidence that lockdowns dont work was retracted. Paper by Savaris, et al (edit: correction) accessed hundreds of thousands of times.
I think it's a useful fiction that you are completely protected the moment you get the shot, as most people aren't likely to do something nerdy like keep track of 2 weeks after last shot. Just give them the shot and tell them they are safe.
Useful fictions in policy just turn into conspiracy theory fuel when someone who doesn't have their head up their ass corrects someone who does.
The model failed to find that mobility was related to mortality, so it was a weak model.
I think what happened is that the way they tested if the model worked didn't account for the fact that data from Peru was garbage and would show a positive result even on the weakest of models if simulated, so they failed to hone the model as much as they could have.
Tldr garbage in garbage out
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The model failed to find that mobility was related to mortality, so it was a weak model.
I think what happened is that the way they tested if the model worked didn't account for the fact that data from Peru was garbage and would show a positive result even on the weakest of models if simulated, so they failed to hone the model as much as they could have.
Tldr garbage in garbage out
What happened is that someone made up data that should produce a positive coefficient and the model failed to show a positive coefficient. And then also showed that the model, when fed simulated data that had opposite construction for the coefficient still failed to find coefficients.
If you can’t find coefficients in simulated data that we know has coefficients because they were built with them then maybe the model is shit.
The model failed to find that mobility was related to mortality, so it was a weak model.
I think what happened is that the way they tested if the model worked didn't account for the fact that data from Peru was garbage and would show a positive result even on the weakest of models if simulated, so they failed to hone the model as much as they could have.
Tldr garbage in garbage out
What happened is that someone made up data that should produce a positive coefficient and the model failed to show a positive coefficient. And then also showed that the model, when fed simulated data that had opposite construction for the coefficient still failed to find coefficients.
If you can’t find coefficients in simulated data that we know has coefficients because they were built with them then maybe the model is shit.
The clue is that when they built another "definitely positive" simulation by modifying the original data instead of de novo, the only positive values were from Peru. We already know the model was weak because even the author's positive test dataset (a measly two countries) was not robust to trifling manipulation. I hypothesize that they built a primitive model, tested it against the real data using some transformation, found that it was good enough to detect at least some presumed false positives, and didn't realize that those false positives were actually junk data that should have been censored. Doing that would have left them with a suspicious looking blank sheet that should have triggered further refinements to the model.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Got my Spikevax (Moderna) booster on Sunday here in the UK. Quite fortunate with the timing considering how things kicked off here in the UK Sunday evening.
People giving me the jab asked what I did for a living (front line role for a local authority) and they said it sounded like hard work. To which I replied “yeah but I’m not working Sundays like you are and you’re doing a fantastic job”.
That got a few smiles and then they had a bit of a moan.
Sunday evening felt rough; Monday my arm hurt an incredible amount and I was struggling. At night I managed the incredible feat of shivering as I felt so cold and also sweating because I felt so hot. Woke up this morning feeling back to normal.
That’s me, my wife and most of our families with boosters now. Not going to be a massive family gathering at Christmas but those we do meet up with will have as much protection as you can get.
"Today, our letter about a paper in Nature Scientific Reports that claimed to find no evidence that staying at home reduced Covid-19 deaths was published
This is a depressing example of how scientific error-correction fails"
TLDR: the process worked as designed, but was inherently too slow to react in time to affect a pandemic. While the retraction was churning through, people were sending articles based on it to each other, and governments were creating policy based on flawed science.
To be clear, Meyerowitz-Katz was the first author on a paper arguing against the conclusions of the retracted paper. His paper is likely a major reason why the original was retracted by the journal editors. The original retracted paper that was seen hundreds of thousands of times was by Savaris, et al.
+2
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
If you swallowed an entire bottle of vitamins at once, you'd probably get super constipated from that rock you just ate
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+3
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
You know when people go to the ICU and get ventilated, how they're usually sedated? You would think people would be fully unconscious.
I'm going to put the rest of this under spoilers because it's rather horrifying.
Almost 16% of critically ill people who went to an ICU and were ventilated (but survived) later recalled vivid nightmares and hallucinations during that time. These nightmares were enough to trigger PTSD in a percentage of these patients. The exact mechanism is unknown, but it may be related to sleep paralysis - which I hope you the reader have never and will never experience, because it is terrifying. Somewhat conscious and aware, but unable to move or react, getting scared, and then hallucinating from that fear, causing more fear, and so on.
It's of course impossible to interview people who died on the vent, but it's a safe bet that many of them died in abject pure terror, trapped in their own nightmares, unable to even scream as they drowned in their own lung fluids. it is a horrifying way to die, and every antivax shithead who has led others to their deaths helped cause thousands of these agonizing ends. Fuck them all.
Anyway, I got my booster today. Since my first two shots were Pfizer I decided to switch it out with Moderna. Also just found out the first Omicron case was just found in this state, so that's just freaking great when I'm the only person wearing a mask in most of the places I go to.
To be clear, Meyerowitz-Katz was the first author on a paper arguing against the conclusions of the retracted paper. His paper is likely a major reason why the original was retracted by the journal editors. The original retracted paper that was seen hundreds of thousands of times was by Savaris, et al.
Glad to see that Pfizer's therapy is a dual-agent once-daily pill, rather than Merck's single-agent pill. Merck is just begging for mutations and resistance with that strategy, and honestly it's a supremely bad idea.
The difficulties of antivirals to treat respiratory viral infections persist, but this latest data is extremely heartening, regardless.
Edit: Additional good news, if Pfizer's therapy holds up: They're already licensing it out to generic manufacturers across the world. That could mean an extremely big bump in manufacturing. That might be factored into their 80 million number, but I think that 80 million actually represents Pfizer's production capacity alone. That'd mean good things for getting it out there.
I don’t think it actually is a dual agent pill. The ritanovir is just there to inhibit CYPs (reduce metabolism) of their drug.
Peru's new vaccine passport - and public health - at risk thanks to organized criminals penetrating the health ministry and, for cash, categorizing anti-vaxxers as vaccinated:
This is with the new mandate of "you need a vaccination card to enter to closed spaces" going up this month. Health Ministry quickly said that they were demanding an investigation with the relevant authorities and taking internal measures, but there's also a very vocal minority of "you won't violate MAH FREEDOMS", "personal choice", "my lack of a vaccine is not your problem", "don't want poison on my body", "nobody tells me what to do", you know the drill.
And the Medical College is opening an investigation to drop doctors spreading anti-vaxx lies.
Peru's new vaccine passport - and public health - at risk thanks to organized criminals penetrating the health ministry and, for cash, categorizing anti-vaxxers as vaccinated:
This is with the new mandate of "you need a vaccination card to enter to closed spaces" going up this month. Health Ministry quickly said that they were demanding an investigation with the relevant authorities and taking internal measures, but there's also a very vocal minority of "you won't violate MAH FREEDOMS", "personal choice", "my lack of a vaccine is not your problem", "don't want poison on my body", "nobody tells me what to do", you know the drill.
And the Medical College is opening an investigation to drop doctors spreading anti-vaxx lies.
Human beings are fucking broken.
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
+33
Options
TetraNitroCubaneThe DjinneratorAt the bottom of a bottleRegistered Userregular
Glad to see that Pfizer's therapy is a dual-agent once-daily pill, rather than Merck's single-agent pill. Merck is just begging for mutations and resistance with that strategy, and honestly it's a supremely bad idea.
The difficulties of antivirals to treat respiratory viral infections persist, but this latest data is extremely heartening, regardless.
Edit: Additional good news, if Pfizer's therapy holds up: They're already licensing it out to generic manufacturers across the world. That could mean an extremely big bump in manufacturing. That might be factored into their 80 million number, but I think that 80 million actually represents Pfizer's production capacity alone. That'd mean good things for getting it out there.
I don’t think it actually is a dual agent pill. The ritanovir is just there to inhibit CYPs (reduce metabolism) of their drug.
Crap - I thought they were using the ritonavir to target a mechanism of action in the virus itself, but it looks like you're right. It's just a boosting agent.
If that's the case, I give this drug 6-8 months of efficacy, tops, before resistant strains evolve and render it useless.
TetraNitroCubane on
0
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
And there's also the now fringe parties trying to pull back the vaccination mandate through Congress because "is against the Constitution" (Fact check: There's multiple articles on the Peruvian Constitution that give the State full power over the public health on the country AND a additional one that covers the State of Emergency that has been ongoing since the pandemic started) and "there is no scientific evidence on vaccines" (said the vaccinated Congresswoman) and "we need religious exceptions" (Health Ministry already said no to that).
Actual reason being, of course, that messing things up and then blaming the ruling coalition is a tried and true strategy.
Tonight I will oppose both compulsory vaccines for NHS staff, and the introduction of vaccine passports. Both measures are counterproductive and will create division when we need cooperation and unity.
Unlike the previous example of craven sabotage of the pandemic response for political gain, don't worry. Corbyn is really this much of an intransigent moron.
Posts
Generally (very broadly speaking), you can overdose much more easily on fat soluble vitamins, and water soluble vitamins are very hard to overdose on - because the body has a very effective water removal system
This also means fat soluble vitamins are stored much more easily, so your body basically has them on hand and you only need to replenish them from time to time -
Water soluble vitamins are gone very fast on the other hand and generally need to be replenished more often.
Don't take this as advice for your diet though, this is just a very broad overview
Pretty much. Take vitamin D. It's a fat soluble vitamin, so in order to get any from supplements you generally need to take it in alongside fat. The RDI is going to vary between about 600 IU to 1,000 IU per day. 4,000 IU per day is typically cited as a "take no more than this daily" line. But under some circumstances, a person might be given a bolus dose of vitamin D of up to 60,000 IU.
Basically, don't overdo it, but also don't worry if you take three vitamin tablets instead of two.
I take vitamin D because I'm a nerd that spends too much time indoors, not because I think it'll make me immune to covid.
Pfizer pill held up in testing better than mervck one. 89% effective. Details in article. They say they could get out 200k by end of this year and 80 mil next year. Of course still needs to be reviewed.
The difficulties of antivirals to treat respiratory viral infections persist, but this latest data is extremely heartening, regardless.
Edit: Additional good news, if Pfizer's therapy holds up: They're already licensing it out to generic manufacturers across the world. That could mean an extremely big bump in manufacturing. That might be factored into their 80 million number, but I think that 80 million actually represents Pfizer's production capacity alone. That'd mean good things for getting it out there.
Thoughts?
Instantly? Or even within an hour or two? No way at all, your immune system just doesn't work that fast. But possibly within a few days, at least for most of the effectiveness. Your body already has those specific antibodies up and running actively and ramping up production is faster and easier than finding the winning combo in the first place.
I still wouldn't think the full 95% efficacy kicks in until that specific immune response kicks in a couple weeks later, though.
Thanks, that's what I was thinking.
At least I got my booster on Saturday.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Right after you get the shot your immune system starts ramping up at a rate that's probably at least as fast as you would be if you were infected with the real virus. If you did get infected at some point in the next few days, I'd think the virus would just get steamrolled before it has a chance to get established?
We don't need people getting a jab and then (barring feeling under the weather from a reaction) wandering into increasingly risky behaviours where permitted. Attending large parties or seeing vulnerable friends/family.
We saw with all the bullshit around masks (that persists to this day) that the public at large is not good with nuance, but we're not talking some recursive fractal advanced calculus or something.
"You've had your shot, it's not a magic shield, please rest up if possible, and your body needs some time to take these instructions and turn it into something actionable in the event you come into contact with the actual virus."
I'm not a doc and am spitballing off the cuff, but the point I'm trying to make is that it's not complicated (even by the public's standards) and that being fast and loose just feeds into the assholes looking to drive wedges into society.
It doesn't need to be an exhaustively researched paper that the patient won't read, but surely medically trained folks can present that in a streamlined yet fact based manner.
No it takes a few days, the timepoints are going to vary by study design but usually you're only going to measure antibody titer every 7 days. The more frequent draws are when you're trying to do pharmacokinetics too.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
The body will tackle the target proteins with the available antibodies already present (which are now at a reduced level compared to the high point following original vaccination), but there's still going to be proteins left over from that. If it were a virus, that would mean a chance it still gets to establish and infect. In the case of vaccine, those extra proteins are going to kick off the standard immune response (fast generic antibodies, then specific antibodies in about two weeks). The specific response is what ramps the body up to full-on warfare mode; the high point of that is the point of falloff in the following months as it's not resource-efficient for the immune system to endlessly produce a maximum response to one antigen (this would collapse the immune system really fast).
There are parts of the immune response that are faster (such as elevating body temperature, which can happen within a matter of hours), but the actual strong immune response is going to take a couple weeks to kick out those good, specific antibodies for maximum effectiveness.
One of the main articles used as evidence that lockdowns dont work was retracted. Paper by Savaris, et al (edit: correction) accessed hundreds of thousands of times.
https://retractionwatch.com/2021/12/13/paper-claiming-a-lack-of-evidence-covid-19-lockdowns-work-is-retracted/
Details on site. TLDR. The paper was BS.
That's awesome but probably too late. The damage from the article has been done.
So you're saying lockdowns cause Autism?
Useful fictions in policy just turn into conspiracy theory fuel when someone who doesn't have their head up their ass corrects someone who does.
The model failed to find that mobility was related to mortality, so it was a weak model.
I think what happened is that the way they tested if the model worked didn't account for the fact that data from Peru was garbage and would show a positive result even on the weakest of models if simulated, so they failed to hone the model as much as they could have.
Tldr garbage in garbage out
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
What happened is that someone made up data that should produce a positive coefficient and the model failed to show a positive coefficient. And then also showed that the model, when fed simulated data that had opposite construction for the coefficient still failed to find coefficients.
If you can’t find coefficients in simulated data that we know has coefficients because they were built with them then maybe the model is shit.
The clue is that when they built another "definitely positive" simulation by modifying the original data instead of de novo, the only positive values were from Peru. We already know the model was weak because even the author's positive test dataset (a measly two countries) was not robust to trifling manipulation. I hypothesize that they built a primitive model, tested it against the real data using some transformation, found that it was good enough to detect at least some presumed false positives, and didn't realize that those false positives were actually junk data that should have been censored. Doing that would have left them with a suspicious looking blank sheet that should have triggered further refinements to the model.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
People giving me the jab asked what I did for a living (front line role for a local authority) and they said it sounded like hard work. To which I replied “yeah but I’m not working Sundays like you are and you’re doing a fantastic job”.
That got a few smiles and then they had a bit of a moan.
Sunday evening felt rough; Monday my arm hurt an incredible amount and I was struggling. At night I managed the incredible feat of shivering as I felt so cold and also sweating because I felt so hot. Woke up this morning feeling back to normal.
That’s me, my wife and most of our families with boosters now. Not going to be a massive family gathering at Christmas but those we do meet up with will have as much protection as you can get.
Exactly the perspective of one of the people working on the retraction:
"Today, our letter about a paper in Nature Scientific Reports that claimed to find no evidence that staying at home reduced Covid-19 deaths was published
This is a depressing example of how scientific error-correction fails"
TLDR: the process worked as designed, but was inherently too slow to react in time to affect a pandemic. While the retraction was churning through, people were sending articles based on it to each other, and governments were creating policy based on flawed science.
To be clear, Meyerowitz-Katz was the first author on a paper arguing against the conclusions of the retracted paper. His paper is likely a major reason why the original was retracted by the journal editors. The original retracted paper that was seen hundreds of thousands of times was by Savaris, et al.
You can OD on Vitamin D, but the worst that happened to me was just aggressive diarrhea, and the dehydration to back it up.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I'm going to put the rest of this under spoilers because it's rather horrifying.
Almost 16% of critically ill people who went to an ICU and were ventilated (but survived) later recalled vivid nightmares and hallucinations during that time. These nightmares were enough to trigger PTSD in a percentage of these patients. The exact mechanism is unknown, but it may be related to sleep paralysis - which I hope you the reader have never and will never experience, because it is terrifying. Somewhat conscious and aware, but unable to move or react, getting scared, and then hallucinating from that fear, causing more fear, and so on.
It's of course impossible to interview people who died on the vent, but it's a safe bet that many of them died in abject pure terror, trapped in their own nightmares, unable to even scream as they drowned in their own lung fluids. it is a horrifying way to die, and every antivax shithead who has led others to their deaths helped cause thousands of these agonizing ends. Fuck them all.
Anyway, I got my booster today. Since my first two shots were Pfizer I decided to switch it out with Moderna. Also just found out the first Omicron case was just found in this state, so that's just freaking great when I'm the only person wearing a mask in most of the places I go to.
Thank you I corrected my post.
I don’t think it actually is a dual agent pill. The ritanovir is just there to inhibit CYPs (reduce metabolism) of their drug.
And the Medical College is opening an investigation to drop doctors spreading anti-vaxx lies.
Human beings are fucking broken.
Crap - I thought they were using the ritonavir to target a mechanism of action in the virus itself, but it looks like you're right. It's just a boosting agent.
If that's the case, I give this drug 6-8 months of efficacy, tops, before resistant strains evolve and render it useless.
Edit: The YouTube thumbnail is kind of graphic so putting in spoiler
Actual reason being, of course, that messing things up and then blaming the ruling coalition is a tried and true strategy.
Unlike the previous example of craven sabotage of the pandemic response for political gain, don't worry. Corbyn is really this much of an intransigent moron.