Covid-19

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
73,815
41,685
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
Prove that he has saved 700 lives. Heck, I would settle for 7. And that is the problem, his unsubstantiated claims are unverifiable. Unlike the actual research @steross posted, which you completely ignored, there is no way that anyone else can evaluate the validity of his claims. Thus, they are worthless.

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
Why don’t you prove that he hasn’t? He puts out a video every week I think. Lots of very good info. He’s easy to find. You would be doing the public a great service by calling him out on his lies. Give him a call stud. Or you can continue to take pot shots at him while hiding behind an anonymous message board and bragging about how many $ worth of grants you’ve written while he’s putting himself out there for public consumption trying to save lives . Your call.
It's like you are going for every single logical fallacy in a day. This one is "shifting the burden of proof." To put it simply, it is your job to prove your own assertions. Even more importantly, it is his job to prove them. It is not my job to disprove your claims.

I can back up my claims of grants and research. There are a few people here who know me in real life and have read my publications. But if YOU don't believe me IDGAF.

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
73,815
41,685
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
Give him a call stud. Or you can continue to take pot shots at him while hiding behind an anonymous message board and bragging about how many $ worth of grants you’ve written while he’s putting himself out there for public consumption trying to save lives . Your call.
Oh, the irony.
The complete and total lack of self-awareness.

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
32,079
32,907
1,743
oklahoma city
Interesting, thank you. Medically, is that considered a normal test population? I also see it doesn’t include children younger than12, do you know if they’ve completed or plan to complete testing for a younger age group?
Size of groups are based on statistical analysis of power, how many subjects are required to provide an appropriate confidence that the results are not likely to be just from chance. So, group size depends on the effect being sought.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
32,079
32,907
1,743
oklahoma city
First of all, I didn’t ask you what you looked at. That was another poster. By the way, I actually read the study done on 12-15 year olds that you posted. I posted a video of the good OBGYN on here recently and promptly got banned for it. I’m sure you missed me while I was gone. Look him up yourself he isn’t hard to find and I think he puts one up every week.
I vaguely know the guy. I've seen a few of his videos and they are mostly his opinion. I'm not discounting his opinion, just saying it isn't research data. I don't want to look through his opinion videos. I thought you might have one to point out where he analyzed a paper as you said he does.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
73,815
41,685
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
First of all, I didn’t ask you what you looked at. That was another poster. By the way, I actually read the study done on 12-15 year olds that you posted. I posted a video of the good OBGYN on here recently and promptly got banned for it. I’m sure you missed me while I was gone. Look him up yourself he isn’t hard to find and I think he puts one up every week.
I vaguely know the guy. I've seen a few of his videos and they are mostly his opinion. I'm not discounting his opinion, just saying it isn't research data. I don't want to look through his opinion videos. I thought you might have one to point out where he analyzed a paper as you said he does.
He didn't say he analyzed a paper.

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
 
Jul 5, 2020
1,436
317
213
58
Broken Arrow
Size of groups are based on statistical analysis of power, how many subjects are required to provide an appropriate confidence that the results are not likely to be just from chance. So, group size depends on the effect being sought.
Fair enough. Let me re-phrase the question. For what we’re currently dealing with, what is your level of comfort with the test population disclosed?
 

gogetumpoke

Banned
Banned
Sep 3, 2010
721
173
1,593
I vaguely know the guy. I've seen a few of his videos and they are mostly his opinion. I'm not discounting his opinion, just saying it isn't research data. I don't want to look through his opinion videos. I thought you might have one to point out where he analyzed a paper as you said he does.
He has several where he goes through the data from studies and gives his take. I don’t watch them every week. Interesting guy. Confirmation bias on my part? Maybe, but there’s a lot of that going around. Right or wrong I admire the guy for putting himself out there and standing the reputation risk if he’s wrong or lying about his results.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
32,079
32,907
1,743
oklahoma city
Fair enough. Let me re-phrase the question. For what we’re currently dealing with, what is your level of comfort with the test population disclosed?
Which study are you talking about? And, why do you have concern that the study population does not reach significance and what is the statistical basis for your concern?
 
Jul 5, 2020
1,436
317
213
58
Broken Arrow
Which study are you talking about? And, why do you have concern that the study population does not reach significance and what is the statistical basis for your concern?
The two you posted from the NEJOM. And I don’t have concern, I’m just looking for someone in the medical field to educate me on the data, and what is considered typical and what might be considered abbreviated for expediency. So, for example, when you see that population (i.e. 2,000-3,000) does it cause you any pause because maybe it’s a little (or a lot) smaller than what you expected to see? Or does it pretty much align with your expectations?
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
32,079
32,907
1,743
oklahoma city
He has several where he goes through the data from studies and gives his take. I don’t watch them every week. Interesting guy. Confirmation bias on my part? Maybe, but there’s a lot of that going around. Right or wrong I admire the guy for putting himself out there and standing the reputation risk if he’s wrong or lying about his results.
I just started one of his videos and he was saying in the first minute or two that masking does not work. He doesn't do emergency medicine. I GUARANTEE that if he followed me in the rooms where I go there is not a chance in hell he would be in there without a mask. Yes, masking is overdone. Yes, it is probably pointless to be wearing a mask walking around Hefner lake. But, his comment that "the studies" have shown that masks are completely ineffective is simply a lie to make the crowd like him. These are ads. Pure and simple.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
32,079
32,907
1,743
oklahoma city
The two you posted from the NEJOM. And I don’t have concern, I’m just looking for someone in the medical field to educate me on the data, and what is considered typical and what might be considered abbreviated for expediency. So, for example, when you see that population (i.e. 2,000-3,000) does it cause you any pause because maybe it’s a little (or a lot) smaller than what you expected to see? Or does it pretty much align with your expectations?
There isn't a typical number. You can have a trial with 50,000 people but if they are looking for something that is extremely rare (such as aspirating food when you are going under anesthesia) then 50,000 might not be enough. But, if you are looking for something with a more frequent rate (in the safety study they chose 0.25%) then it should be picked up with fewer cases. Some studies looking for effect will have 50 people. Let's say you want to randomize to see if there is a difference in given fluid X or fluid Y after a gunshot to the chest, well, you aren't going to get 10,000 people with a gunshot wound to the chest.



Another example, the Ivermectin studies are as follows:
From Egypt (400 and 200 in control) the largest but RETRACTED as data was falsified
From Iran 70 given and 70 control
ICON Florida charts reviewed retrospectively 173 with Iver and 107 without. Not even a controlled study, just reviewed charts.
Spain (for prevention at disease onset) 24 patients total
There were a few more even smaller.

Other largest Ivermectin study was from Colombia 400 pts. Younger population. Randomized. No difference was found with treatment but cannot extrapolate to older population.

So, point is, if you are going to question small numbers then you really need to question the medication you had been taking. The numbers and study methods are FAR poorer than the ones I posted.
 

gogetumpoke

Banned
Banned
Sep 3, 2010
721
173
1,593
I just started one of his videos and he was saying in the first minute or two that masking does not work. He doesn't do emergency medicine. I GUARANTEE that if he followed me in the rooms where I go there is not a chance in hell he would be in there without a mask. Yes, masking is overdone. Yes, it is probably pointless to be wearing a mask walking around Hefner lake. But, his comment that "the studies" have shown that masks are completely ineffective is simply a lie to make the crowd like him. These are ads. Pure and simple.
https://www.newsweek.com/fauci-said...ctive-keeping-out-virus-email-reveals-1596703

Well that settles it then. Anyone who says that masks are ineffective is definitely a quack.
 
Jul 5, 2020
1,436
317
213
58
Broken Arrow
There isn't a typical number. You can have a trial with 50,000 people but if they are looking for something that is extremely rare (such as aspirating food when you are going under anesthesia) then 50,000 might not be enough. But, if you are looking for something with a more frequent rate (in the safety study they chose 0.25%) then it should be picked up with fewer cases. Some studies looking for effect will have 50 people. Let's say you want to randomize to see if there is a difference in given fluid X or fluid Y after a gunshot to the chest, well, you aren't going to get 10,000 people with a gunshot wound to the chest.

Another example, the Ivermectin studies are as follows:
From Egypt (400 and 200 in control) the largest but RETRACTED as data was falsified
From Iran 70 given and 70 control
ICON Florida charts reviewed retrospectively 173 with Iver and 107 without. Not even a controlled study, just reviewed charts.
Spain (for prevention at disease onset) 24 patients total
There were a few more even smaller.

Other largest Ivermectin study was from Colombia 400 pts. Younger population. Randomized. No difference was found with treatment but cannot extrapolate to older population.

So, point is, if you are going to question small numbers then you really need to question the medication you had been taking. The numbers and study methods are FAR poorer than the ones I posted.
Thank you
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
32,079
32,907
1,743
oklahoma city
https://www.newsweek.com/fauci-said...ctive-keeping-out-virus-email-reveals-1596703

Well that settles it then. Anyone who says that masks are ineffective is definitely a quack.
I know the guy. He isn't a quack. But, he is advertising and building clientele with these videos. You want to hear that stuff.
Fauci said it in Feb 2020 and since has changed his mind and restated over and over. Science isn't "read my lips, no new taxes" type stuff. As new info comes in, you SHOULD change what you say.
William's video where he claims they are useless was in Sep 2021.
 

gogetumpoke

Banned
Banned
Sep 3, 2010
721
173
1,593
I had lunch with our local hospital administrator today. Rotary every Wednesday. The subject of mandates came up and he stated that under 40% of his staff is vaccinated. They had to turn down Thunder tickets for a conference they were going to because he was the only one vaccinated. Thought it was interesting.
 

gogetumpoke

Banned
Banned
Sep 3, 2010
721
173
1,593
I know the guy. He isn't a quack. But, he is advertising and building clientele with these videos. You want to hear that stuff.
Fauci said it in Feb 2020 and since has changed his mind and restated over and over. Science isn't "read my lips, no new taxes" type stuff. As new info comes in, you SHOULD change what you say.
William's video where he claims they are useless was in Sep 2021.
Kudos to you for at least starting one of his videos. I wish you would have watched all of it. Do you think he’s lying about his results?
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
32,079
32,907
1,743
oklahoma city
He claims that he (or his practice?) has treated something like 700 symptomatic Covid case and had around 5 hospitalizations and 0 deaths.
The problem of course is that is a selected patient population. I doubt he is flat-out lying. For example, I have treated more than 700 and have had WAY more than 5 hospitalizations and unfortunately a lot of deaths. But, my patient population is veterans and many of them are old, sometimes indigent, and of poor health. He runs a lifestyle type clinic and most of his patients have significant financial means and choose to spend their money on health. Therefore, his results even if true are not very generalizable. I work part-time at a competing clinic to his one day a week. For that population, I have had no deaths, either.:D
 
Last edited: