581 karma · joined November 28, 2016
Go back a few episodes and you'll see the rationale for them.
I'm saying specifically that the Lancet should not have published the Surgisphere study due to its flaws.
Surgisphere is producing studies based on data they don't actually have, according to researchers, Australian hospitals, etc. It could be for self-aggrandizement, or pay-for-publish or something else. I don't know, but it should not be tolerated for any reason.
If you dig into Surgisphere, you will see they have significant consulting engagements with Johnson and Johnson. Not saying that's necessarily bad, but so much bad science about Covid and HCQ seems geared towards promoting high-priced treatments like Remdesivir, and not low-cost preventative measures like making sure you're not D deficient. All these studies need to be evaluated based on who's funding them or the political agenda behind them.
HCQ seems like it's been targeted for destruction. Every study I've read on it shows you shouldn't use it in late stages of disease. Fair enough, but the theory of its effectiveness (as a Zinc ionophore) hasn't been fully studied, although there is a good amount of anecdotal and country-level evidence it works well if taken early (with Zinc).
These garbage studies are dangerous and should be called out loudly.
If you dig into Surgisphere, you will see they have significant consulting engagements with Johnson and Johnson. Not saying that's necessarily bad, but so much bad science about Covid and HCQ seems geared towards promoting high-priced treatments like Remdesivir, and not low-cost preventative measures like making sure you're not D deficient. All these studies need to be evaluated based on who's funding them or the political agenda behind them.
HCQ seems like it's been targeted for destruction. Every study I've read on it shows you shouldn't use it in late stages of disease. Fair enough, but the theory of its effectiveness (as a Zinc ionophore) hasn't been studied properly, although there is a good amount of anecdotal evidence it works well if taken very early (with Zinc).
These garbage studies are dangerous and should be called out loudly.
https://netmarketshare.com/report.aspx?options=%7B%22filter%...
In the US, it's .66%.
The global trend for last year: https://netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.asp...
Organization,Sessions,Page Views,New Users,Event Count Amazon.com,6436,9307,3823,140 Microsoft Azure,5798,8988,4645,2 Google Cloud,3313,5425,2486,0 OVH SAS,1715,3349,872,0 TOPNET,1657,5133,1409,14 OVH Hosting,1628,2787,1232,7 Digital Ocean,1267,3050,816,5 Hetzner Online GmbH,988,2051,529,0 Rackspace Ltd.,926,1644,376,48 Linode,809,1008,272,4
This product (https://truestats.com) collects the I.P. address and user agent for the purpose of detecting fraud (not selling data or profiling users). It is used for frequency checking and other patterns that would indicate fraud. We are still going through the legal analysis of how to deal with this, even though we have no idea who the visitors are.
I think considering the I.P. address as PII is a little much if you are not using it in a way that would violate privacy or selling the data.
1) The program first prescribed SSRIs in order to reduce the child's anxiety enough to do the difficult work required.
2) Intense ERP (exposure response prevention) solo and in a group setting. The social aspect of being with fellow sufferers was critical.
3) Coming up with rewards for successful ERP sessions (not food related due to potential overeating)
4) Starting treatment as soon as possible. OCD has a tendency to get worse and harder to treat over time. I clearly saw the difference in treatment efficacy based on how long it took for the child to start treatment.
The link to the program is https://iocdf.org/clinics/ucla-child-adolescent-ocd-intensiv...