CoVID-19 / SARS-CoV-2 Information and Questions

[Bruce]

One step closer to DNA library from WestWorld

CDC Says 10% Of COVID Swabs Sent to Genome Lab, Raising Privacy Questions

Scientists are analyzing the sequencing of the COVID-19 virus for variants like Delta and Omicron.

www.newsweek.com

What a ridiculous article. Genetic sequencing of viral RNA from swabs is required to identify variants. That process does not do anything with the person's DNA.

If some rogue lab was using those swabs to sequence DNA from the person swabbed that would be a crime that should be prosecuted. However I doubt the person swabbed was identified as part of the RNA sequencing as privacy concerns exist and I am not aware of any attempts to report results of these surveillance programs back to the person swabbed.

 

[tabbibus]

What a ridiculous article. Genetic sequencing of viral RNA from swabs is required to identify variants. That process does not do anything with the person's DNA.

If some rogue lab was using those swabs to sequence DNA from the person swabbed that would be a crime that should be prosecuted. However I doubt the person swabbed was identified as part of the RNA sequencing as privacy concerns exist and I am not aware of any attempts to report results of these surveillance programs back to the person swabbed.

It's click bait. Of course, deep down in the article it states the obvious, that this is for variant testing. But that doesn't drive clicks, does it? I mean, I clicked, so it worked. lol

 

[Adrian @ JB Solutions]

It's ridiculous until you start getting advertisements and mail for genetic defects you are not aware that you are high risk for. "Why am I getting information for Type-II diabetes?".

I mean social media and phones say they don't listen to you but that is proven false on a daily basis. Genetic based marketing is only the next step in growing Silicone Valleys profits. It is naive to believe there isn't a possibility they aren't collecting your DNA for a database.

 

[Murf'n'surf]

I came home late last night and caught Siri and Alexa talking amongst themselves about me. I am devastated and emotionally damaged now......they know all my $h*t.

Sorry.....back on topic

 

[Bruce]

It's ridiculous until you start getting advertisements and mail for genetic defects you are not aware that you are high risk for. "Why am I getting information for Type-II diabetes?".

I mean social media and phones say they don't listen to you but that is proven false on a daily basis. Genetic based marketing is only the next step in growing Silicone Valleys profits. It is naive to believe there isn't a possibility they aren't collecting your DNA for a database.

More than 10% of Americans are T2D. Likely a historical increase due to diet, lifestyle and greater testing.

With pharma spending more than $6B per year marketing in the US we see a lot of ads.

Siri, Google Assistant, Alexa and similar systems have to listen for their trigger words to be useful. If you have an iPhone just say "hey Siri" and it will confirm it is listening. Typically those trigger words are checked for locally without transmitting the audio while questions asked are sent to Apple, Google, Amazon, etc.

Things like Chinese manufactured internet connected garage door openers, light switches and outlets concern me. Especially when they ask you to verify your name, address and personal info before using them.

If you want to know what is being transmitted I suggest that you learn to packet sniff your devices to see when they are transmitting.

If you want to keep your life private you need to start by getting rid of your phone, bank account, internet connection, remove the GPS from you cars and boat.

Personally I accept that my life is public.

Regardless sequencing viral RNA does not reveal a person's DNA. That article and posting it are scaremongering.

 

[Bruce]

I came home late last night and caught Siri and Alexa talking amongst themselves about me. I am devastated and emotionally damaged now......they know all my $h*t.

Sorry.....back on topic

I find ads that say Hey Google to be quite irritating. We have Google Home devices in most rooms so my son can use them to call for help when he needs it. When someone says "Hey Google" on an ad late at night several Google Homes will chirp and start listening. Someday I expect there well be an ad that says "Hey Google Play ...." so that all the Google Homes start playing a longer ad.

 

[Adrian @ JB Solutions]

I came home late last night and caught Siri and Alexa talking amongst themselves about me. I am devastated and emotionally damaged now......they know all my $h*t.

Sorry.....back on topic

On the plus side, they have the evidence to convict my wife when she murders me one day lol.

 

[Mesa50]

Efficacy of Ivermectin on Disease Progression in Patients With COVID-19

This randomized clinical trial assesses the efficacy of ivermectin treatment in preventing progression to severe disease among high-risk patients with COVID-19 in Malaysia.

jamanetwork.com

Surprise!

Interesting that the study claims no evidence of the effectiveness of ivermectin, yet states within the study, that 4 people required mechanical ventilation in the ivermectin group, and 10 required it in the control group. That’s 60% better than those deprived of the treatment. ICU admissions were 6 ivermectin vs 8 control. And the biggest of all = 3 ivermectin deaths vs 10 control group deaths. So the ivermectin group was 70% more likely to survive. I guess they were hoping we would only read the headline.

 

[crazy4life]

Interesting that the study claims no evidence of the effectiveness of ivermectin, yet states within the study, that 4 people required mechanical ventilation in the ivermectin group, and 10 required it in the control group. That’s 60% better than those deprived of the treatment. ICU admissions were 6 ivermectin vs 8 control. And the biggest of all = 3 ivermectin deaths vs 10 control group deaths. So the ivermectin group was 70% more likely to survive. I guess they were hoping we would only read the headline.

Damn—-A whole 439 subjects in that study.
Here is a study with 223,128 people.
Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19: A Citywide, Prospective, Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching

I have said this before and I will say it again. You can find a study to support your narrative if look hard enough.

 

[Bruce]

So the ivermectin group was 70% more likely to survive. I guess they were hoping we would only read the headline.

Some indicators went one way others went the other. The differences did not reach the level of significance. If the drug worked it would be expected to have made a significant difference in the outcome of the two groups.

This may help your understanding of evaluating clinical study results https://www.mhaonline.com/faq/clinical-vs-statistical-significance

 

[Bruce]

have said this before and I will say it again. You can find a study to support your narrative if look hard enough.

Especially when you are excited to quote a speculative observational article from a questionable journal with authors including a dentist, a veterinarian, fired doctor(s), and three authors who say they are not medical professionals that you somehow believe is similarly valid as actual clinical research.

 

[crazy4life]

Especially when you are excited to quote a speculative observational article from a questionable journal with authors including a dentist, a veterinarian, fired doctor(s), and three authors who say they are not medical professionals that you somehow believe is similarly valid as actual clinical research.

says the guy who quoted an article from blink news and acted like it was gospel.
ROTFL ? ????

Keep on keeping on LOL

Maybe give itself a talking to so you stop looking like you know what.

 

[Bruce]

says the guy who quoted an article from blink news and acted like it was gospel.

Not sure what you are rambling on about there or if "blink news" even exists.

 

[crazy4life]

Not sure what you are rambling on about there or if "blink news" even exists.

Sorry it was wink news even more laughable. You don’t remember posting an article from wink news and then everyone ridiculing you. Remember you then got all petulant and deleted all the posts and banned a few people for a timeout. I can find it if it would help you remember.

 

[Bruce]

Sorry it was wink news even more laughable. You don’t remember posting an article from wink news and then everyone ridiculing you. Remember you then got all petulant and deleted all the posts and banned a few people for a timeout. I can find it if it would help you remember.

Still no idea what you are rambling on about. Are you referring to the CBS station in Fort Meyers, FL?

A few members have received timeouts for bad behavior but very few have been permanently banned and none in recent years. Posts that violate Our Code of Conduct are removed.

Your recent, personal attack, comments without any relevant substance also violate Our Code of Conduct. If they were against any other member they would have already been acted upon.

 

[tabbibus]

Damn—-A whole 439 subjects in that study.
Here is a study with 223,128 people.
Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19: A Citywide, Prospective, Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching

I have said this before and I will say it again. You can find a study to support your narrative if look hard enough.

That's not the same at all. The study you show is an observational study, published in an obscure repository. The one I showed is a randomized trial. Albeit not double blind but still much better than am observational study, published in JAMA, a pretty good journal.

 

[tabbibus]

Interesting that the study claims no evidence of the effectiveness of ivermectin, yet states within the study, that 4 people required mechanical ventilation in the ivermectin group, and 10 required it in the control group. That’s 60% better than those deprived of the treatment. ICU admissions were 6 ivermectin vs 8 control. And the biggest of all = 3 ivermectin deaths vs 10 control group deaths. So the ivermectin group was 70% more likely to survive. I guess they were hoping we would only read the headline.

I get what you are saying but absolute numbers in data analysis have very little meaning. Which is why you have to look at how that study was designed and powered. Meaning, if the study did not find a statistical difference, then the study can not say that diffence observed is not due to random chance.

 

[tabbibus]

No need to get hostile guys. I didn't want to start a fight. Just to show some reasonably good data that just came out.

 

[crazy4life]

No need to get hostile guys. I didn't want to start a fight. Just to show some reasonably good data that just came out.

Same here. Just showing some data that just came out.

 

[crazy4life]

Interesting that the study claims no evidence of the effectiveness of ivermectin, yet states within the study, that 4 people required mechanical ventilation in the ivermectin group, and 10 required it in the control group. That’s 60% better than those deprived of the treatment. ICU admissions were 6 ivermectin vs 8 control. And the biggest of all = 3 ivermectin deaths vs 10 control group deaths. So the ivermectin group was 70% more likely to survive. I guess they were hoping we would only read the headline.

Looks like you hit the nail right on the head. Which side of this chart taken from the Malaysia Study would you like to be on. I guess the 7 extra dead people can take solace in knowing that there is no statistical difference in the data. Thanks Tabbibus for sharing.