Time to Face the Facts: There Ain’t Gonna be Fall Football

Get the low down on Griz/FCS Football
Post Reply

Will there be fall football in the Big Sky Conference in 2020?

Poll runs till Mon Aug 17, 2020 8:30 am

Yes
35
30%
No
42
36%
Bobcats Suck
39
34%
 
Total votes: 116
User avatar
TrueGriz
Posts: 2344
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: Missoula, Montana

mcg wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:13 am
TrueGriz wrote:
Thu Jul 30, 2020 2:40 pm


Or infringing on their constitutional rights.
that would be incorrect.
Correct or not, that is what some of the anti-mask people are claiming.
Once A Griz, Always A Griz.
PlayerRep
Posts: 27551
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:06 am

uofmman1122 wrote:
Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:33 pm
ilovethecats wrote:
Thu Jul 30, 2020 11:00 am


Hey, I've ALWAYS gotten it! No doubt lockdowns and closures work. Hell, I'd close down schools for two years just to be safe. Kids will be fine! Shut down all businesses and restaurants again for sure. And especially bars, they are the most dangerous. Don't worry about the economy, it will be fine. Hopefully they just keep sending people money for a couple more years. No way that will lead to anything bad.

And masks. MASKS! I don't know how long we'll be asked to wear them, but whatever it is....it's not enough. Obviously if every person wore them every day for the rest of their lives that'd be ideal. I don't know if that's realistic though. But I do think we should wear them for at least 5 years just to be safe.

I'd put a 3-5 year ban on all sports, music and any form of entertainment too. Just to be safe. Did you know that over 50 people have died in Montana from this virus in the last 5 months?! Is that really something we can tolerate. If I'm not mistaken it's the leading cause of death in the state since March. It HAS to be right?!

Let's lock it down! Be safe!
We only needed a 2-month lockdown back in March, but people like you advocated for "getting things open and back to spending money as soon as possible" before we had adequately handled the virus, the irony being that we'd already be open and spending money now if we had taken it seriously.

We're looking at probably another 6-12 months of being internationally isolated and dealing with Covid, while most of the rest of the world starts to go back to normal.

Hey, but at least you get to make all the sarcastic hyperbolic posts you want for the foreseeable future. :thumb:
"Democrats and their media allies have trapped themselves in a contradiction. They are deploring Thursday’s grim second-quarter GDP report even as they demand a repeat of the lockdown that caused the economic catastrophe. What do they expect when government orders Americans to sit in their homes for weeks?

Hard to believe, but some on the left are stumping for a second nationwide lockdown to control the virus. Shut the U.S. down again until October when the scourge will be gone for good. Do they want another 33% decline in GDP and 40 million more unemployed?

Without a vaccine, the virus was always likely to spread through most of the country, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention predicted in March. The lockdown-as-miracle-cure is a fantasy, as the World Health Organization has now acknowledged. The economic and public-health harm is too great and the virus is too easily transmissible."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-lockdo ... opin_pos_3
grizindabox
eGriz Club
Posts: 15868
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 10:54 pm
Location: Spokane, WA

TrueGriz wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:27 am
mcg wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:13 am


that would be incorrect.
Correct or not, that is what some of the anti-mask people are claiming.
Dumbasses.
One of the definitions of privilege is, thinking “the system works” because it worked FOR YOU.
argh!
eGriz Club
Posts: 7998
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 2:20 pm

PlayerRep wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:52 am
uofmman1122 wrote:
Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:33 pm

We only needed a 2-month lockdown back in March, but people like you advocated for "getting things open and back to spending money as soon as possible" before we had adequately handled the virus, the irony being that we'd already be open and spending money now if we had taken it seriously.

We're looking at probably another 6-12 months of being internationally isolated and dealing with Covid, while most of the rest of the world starts to go back to normal.

Hey, but at least you get to make all the sarcastic hyperbolic posts you want for the foreseeable future. :thumb:
"Democrats and their media allies have trapped themselves in a contradiction. They are deploring Thursday’s grim second-quarter GDP report even as they demand a repeat of the lockdown that caused the economic catastrophe. What do they expect when government orders Americans to sit in their homes for weeks?

Hard to believe, but some on the left are stumping for a second nationwide lockdown to control the virus. Shut the U.S. down again until October when the scourge will be gone for good. Do they want another 33% decline in GDP and 40 million more unemployed?

Without a vaccine, the virus was always likely to spread through most of the country, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention predicted in March. The lockdown-as-miracle-cure is a fantasy, as the World Health Organization has now acknowledged. The economic and public-health harm is too great and the virus is too easily transmissible."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-lockdo ... opin_pos_3
so what should we do, the same shit we are doing now?
argh!
eGriz Club
Posts: 7998
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 2:20 pm

PlayerRep wrote:
Thu Jul 30, 2020 10:36 am
horribilisfan8184 wrote:
Thu Jul 30, 2020 9:36 am

Is it true that third world countries that have miserable health care systems, but where malaria (along with stockpiles of hydroxychloroquine) is present are using hydroxy as both a prophylactic and early treatment, seem to have some of the lowest infection rates, hospitalization rates, and death rates on the planet? If so, given how safe and cheap the drug is, perhaps consideration should be given to giving everyone who enters the stadium on game day a healthy dose and lets play ball?
Speaking of Hydroxychlor, see the below quote and terrific Newsweek article by the well-know Yale prof on the subject. This opinion piece is truly worth reading.

"The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It"

"As professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, I have authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications and currently hold senior positions on the editorial boards of several leading journals. I am usually accustomed to advocating for positions within the mainstream of medicine, so have been flummoxed to find that, in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily. Fortunately, the situation can be reversed easily and quickly.

I am referring, of course, to the medication hydroxychloroquine. When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc.

On May 27, I published an article in the American Journal of Epidemiology (AJE) entitled, "Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis." That article, published in the world's leading epidemiology journal, analyzed five studies, demonstrating clear-cut and significant benefits to treated patients, plus other very large studies that showed the medication safety.


Since publication of my May 27 article, seven more studies have demonstrated similar benefit. In a lengthy follow-up letter, also published by AJE, I discuss these seven studies and renew my call for the immediate early use of hydroxychloroquine in high-risk patients. These seven studies include: an additional 400 high-risk patients treated by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, with zero deaths; four studies totaling almost 500 high-risk patients treated in nursing homes and clinics across the U.S., with no deaths; a controlled trial of more than 700 high-risk patients in Brazil, with significantly reduced risk of hospitalization and two deaths among 334 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine; and another study of 398 matched patients in France, also with significantly reduced hospitalization risk. Since my letter was published, even more doctors have reported to me their completely successful use.
https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating- ... on-1519535

"Yale Epidemiology Prof Says That Hydroxychloroquine Could Save 100K Lives But It’s Been Politicized"

https://clashdaily.com/2020/07/yale-epi ... liticized/
first of all, your second citation is from a journal i wouldn't count as reputable. more importantly, regarding hydroxychloroquine, it might be effective very early in the infection, i.e. when symptoms are mild, and the treatment is outpatient. but apparently not so much beyond that, as per.the information the fda is using to make recommendations not a stopping of the use hydroxychlorquine in every situation, which is something that should be made clear when addressing the appropriateness of the drug. i note that in your entire blurb, you say nothing about that distinction, which i find intellectually lazy on your part, given it is a very vital aspect of the debate. from the fda:

July 1, 2020 Update: A summary of the FDA review of safety issues with the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is now available. This includes reports of serious heart rhythm problems and other safety issues, including blood and lymph system disorders, kidney injuries, and liver problems and failure.

June 15, 2020 Update: Based on ongoing analysis and emerging scientific data, FDA has revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19 in certain hospitalized patients when a clinical trial is unavailable or participation is not feasible. We made this determination based on recent results from a large, randomized clinical trial in hospitalized patients that found these medicines showed no benefit for decreasing the likelihood of death or speeding recovery. This outcome was consistent with other new data, including those showing the suggested dosing for these medicines are unlikely to kill or inhibit the virus that causes COVID-19. As a result, we determined that the legal criteria for the EUA are no longer met. Please refer to the Revocation of the EUA Letter and FAQs on the Revocation of the EUA for Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate and Chloroquine Phosphate for more information

from you:

https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/26218/

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-a ... setting-or

you don't seem to understand what has or hasn't been approved regarding hydroxychloroquine, and the reasoning behind these decisions. why are you even commenting about it?
Last edited by argh! on Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:38 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
TrueGriz
Posts: 2344
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: Missoula, Montana

grizindabox wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 11:09 am
TrueGriz wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:27 am


Correct or not, that is what some of the anti-mask people are claiming.
Dumbasses.
I agree.
Once A Griz, Always A Griz.
PlayerRep
Posts: 27551
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:06 am

argh! wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 11:57 am
PlayerRep wrote:
Thu Jul 30, 2020 10:36 am


Speaking of Hydroxychlor, see the below quote and terrific Newsweek article by the well-know Yale prof on the subject. This opinion piece is truly worth reading.

"The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It"

"As professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, I have authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications and currently hold senior positions on the editorial boards of several leading journals. I am usually accustomed to advocating for positions within the mainstream of medicine, so have been flummoxed to find that, in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily. Fortunately, the situation can be reversed easily and quickly.

I am referring, of course, to the medication hydroxychloroquine. When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc.

On May 27, I published an article in the American Journal of Epidemiology (AJE) entitled, "Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis." That article, published in the world's leading epidemiology journal, analyzed five studies, demonstrating clear-cut and significant benefits to treated patients, plus other very large studies that showed the medication safety.


Since publication of my May 27 article, seven more studies have demonstrated similar benefit. In a lengthy follow-up letter, also published by AJE, I discuss these seven studies and renew my call for the immediate early use of hydroxychloroquine in high-risk patients. These seven studies include: an additional 400 high-risk patients treated by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, with zero deaths; four studies totaling almost 500 high-risk patients treated in nursing homes and clinics across the U.S., with no deaths; a controlled trial of more than 700 high-risk patients in Brazil, with significantly reduced risk of hospitalization and two deaths among 334 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine; and another study of 398 matched patients in France, also with significantly reduced hospitalization risk. Since my letter was published, even more doctors have reported to me their completely successful use.
https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating- ... on-1519535

"Yale Epidemiology Prof Says That Hydroxychloroquine Could Save 100K Lives But It’s Been Politicized"

https://clashdaily.com/2020/07/yale-epi ... liticized/
first of all, your second citation is from a journal i wouldn't count as reputable. more importantly, regarding hydroxychloroquine, it might be effective very early in the infection, i.e. when symptoms are mild, and the treatment is outpatient. but apparently not so much beyond that, as per.the information the fda is using to make recommendations not a stopping of the use hydroxychlorquine in every situation, which is something that should be made clear when addressing the appropriateness of the drug. i note that in your entire blurb, you say nothing about that distinction, which i find intellectually lazy on your part, given it is a very vital aspect of the debate. from the fda:

July 1, 2020 Update: A summary of the FDA review of safety issues with the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is now available. This includes reports of serious heart rhythm problems and other safety issues, including blood and lymph system disorders, kidney injuries, and liver problems and failure.

June 15, 2020 Update: Based on ongoing analysis and emerging scientific data, FDA has revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19 in certain hospitalized patients when a clinical trial is unavailable or participation is not feasible. We made this determination based on recent results from a large, randomized clinical trial in hospitalized patients that found these medicines showed no benefit for decreasing the likelihood of death or speeding recovery. This outcome was consistent with other new data, including those showing the suggested dosing for these medicines are unlikely to kill or inhibit the virus that causes COVID-19. As a result, we determined that the legal criteria for the EUA are no longer met. Please refer to the Revocation of the EUA Letter and FAQs on the Revocation of the EUA for Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate and Chloroquine Phosphate for more information

from you:

https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/26218/

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-a ... setting-or

you don't seem to understand what has or hasn't been approved regarding hydroxychloroquine, and the reasoning behind these decisions. why are you even commenting about it?
I didn't comment on anything. I linked an article.

Here's the source article:

"Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis
Harvey A Risch

American Journal of Epidemiology, kwaa093, https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwaa093
Published: 27 May 2020"

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/do ... 93/5847586

Are you going to say that the American Journal of Epidemiology is a bad journal?

I have read more articles on Hydrox than you have, I would guess. More than 50. I have talked to some infectious diseases doctor friends. I had seen the FDA action. I just found it interesting that there is such a split of opinion. By the way, Dr. Risch cites way more studies than you did.

What second citation to a journal are you talking about? Didn't think I cited to any journals. Just to two articles, the second one of which referred to the Risch study and the first was written by Risch.

Perhaps you should do more research. I like it's funny how often you don't do your homework.
Last edited by PlayerRep on Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
uofmman1122
eGriz Club
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: Missoula

PlayerRep wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:52 am
uofmman1122 wrote:
Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:33 pm

We only needed a 2-month lockdown back in March, but people like you advocated for "getting things open and back to spending money as soon as possible" before we had adequately handled the virus, the irony being that we'd already be open and spending money now if we had taken it seriously.

We're looking at probably another 6-12 months of being internationally isolated and dealing with Covid, while most of the rest of the world starts to go back to normal.

Hey, but at least you get to make all the sarcastic hyperbolic posts you want for the foreseeable future. :thumb:
"Democrats and their media allies have trapped themselves in a contradiction. They are deploring Thursday’s grim second-quarter GDP report even as they demand a repeat of the lockdown that caused the economic catastrophe. What do they expect when government orders Americans to sit in their homes for weeks?

Hard to believe, but some on the left are stumping for a second nationwide lockdown to control the virus. Shut the U.S. down again until October when the scourge will be gone for good. Do they want another 33% decline in GDP and 40 million more unemployed?

Without a vaccine, the virus was always likely to spread through most of the country, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention predicted in March. The lockdown-as-miracle-cure is a fantasy, as the World Health Organization has now acknowledged. The economic and public-health harm is too great and the virus is too easily transmissible."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-lockdo ... opin_pos_3
Do I think a second lockdown (realistically the first proper lockdown) would be the fastest way to get over the virus in this country? Yes.

Do I think it's currently a feasible option? Probably not, which is why I am not advocating for one, but again, not because I don't think it would be the best option.

I just get a little peeved with people who didn't take the first lockdown seriously and advocated for reopening before it was safe, but who now want to concern troll about the effectiveness of lockdowns in general. They implore us to "get back to normal, already" and "we just have to let the virus take its course" when, had we taken the first lockdown more seriously for all of April and May, we'd already be well back to normal with hardly anything to worry about.
"Furk. Sneed is in."
PlayerRep
Posts: 27551
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:06 am

uofmman1122 wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:44 pm
PlayerRep wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:52 am


"Democrats and their media allies have trapped themselves in a contradiction. They are deploring Thursday’s grim second-quarter GDP report even as they demand a repeat of the lockdown that caused the economic catastrophe. What do they expect when government orders Americans to sit in their homes for weeks?

Hard to believe, but some on the left are stumping for a second nationwide lockdown to control the virus. Shut the U.S. down again until October when the scourge will be gone for good. Do they want another 33% decline in GDP and 40 million more unemployed?

Without a vaccine, the virus was always likely to spread through most of the country, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention predicted in March. The lockdown-as-miracle-cure is a fantasy, as the World Health Organization has now acknowledged. The economic and public-health harm is too great and the virus is too easily transmissible."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-lockdo ... opin_pos_3
Do I think a second lockdown (realistically the first proper lockdown) would be the fastest way to get over the virus in this country? Yes.

Do I think it's currently a feasible option? Probably not, which is why I am not advocating for one, but again, not because I don't think it would be the best option.

I just get a little peeved with people who didn't take the first lockdown seriously and advocated for reopening before it was safe, but who now want to concern troll about the effectiveness of lockdowns in general. They implore us to "get back to normal, already" and "we just have to let the virus take its course" when, had we taken the first lockdown more seriously for all of April and May, we'd already be well back to normal with hardly anything to worry about.
Got it. I can see your position, but I don't necessarily agree with it. I thought people were fairly compliant with lockdown. Just went too wild as it ended in some places. NYC isn't out of lockdown yet, and it certainly hasn't gotten open. I don't think the economy and people can take more, or much more, lockdown. It's too costly and too hard to get everyone to do it.

Things seem to be trending down in the Sunbelt after their case flare up. Deaths never got huge.

Lockdown was probably more useful in effective in some places than in others. I still don't know the level of effectiveness. People seem to disagree. Even the people and "studies" saying it worked, don't seem to have good data to back that up. Not saying they are wrong. I don't know.

Thx for info and views.
CatGrad-UMGradStu
Posts: 1108
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:03 pm

Three conference schools in Cali. One in Washington. One in Arizona. One in Colorado. Portland. Utah.

Idaho and Montana could field four teams, possibly. The op is correct.
Plainsman
Posts: 293
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2007 1:13 pm

uofmman1122 wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:44 pm
PlayerRep wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:52 am


"Democrats and their media allies have trapped themselves in a contradiction. They are deploring Thursday’s grim second-quarter GDP report even as they demand a repeat of the lockdown that caused the economic catastrophe. What do they expect when government orders Americans to sit in their homes for weeks?

Hard to believe, but some on the left are stumping for a second nationwide lockdown to control the virus. Shut the U.S. down again until October when the scourge will be gone for good. Do they want another 33% decline in GDP and 40 million more unemployed?

Without a vaccine, the virus was always likely to spread through most of the country, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention predicted in March. The lockdown-as-miracle-cure is a fantasy, as the World Health Organization has now acknowledged. The economic and public-health harm is too great and the virus is too easily transmissible."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-lockdo ... opin_pos_3
Do I think a second lockdown (realistically the first proper lockdown) would be the fastest way to get over the virus in this country? Yes.

Do I think it's currently a feasible option? Probably not, which is why I am not advocating for one, but again, not because I don't think it would be the best option.

I just get a little peeved with people who didn't take the first lockdown seriously and advocated for reopening before it was safe, but who now want to concern troll about the effectiveness of lockdowns in general. They implore us to "get back to normal, already" and "we just have to let the virus take its course" when, had we taken the first lockdown more seriously for all of April and May, we'd already be well back to normal with hardly anything to worry about.
👍
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
PlayerRep
Posts: 27551
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:06 am

PlayerRep wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:39 pm
argh! wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 11:57 am


first of all, your second citation is from a journal i wouldn't count as reputable. more importantly, regarding hydroxychloroquine, it might be effective very early in the infection, i.e. when symptoms are mild, and the treatment is outpatient. but apparently not so much beyond that, as per.the information the fda is using to make recommendations not a stopping of the use hydroxychlorquine in every situation, which is something that should be made clear when addressing the appropriateness of the drug. i note that in your entire blurb, you say nothing about that distinction, which i find intellectually lazy on your part, given it is a very vital aspect of the debate. from the fda:

July 1, 2020 Update: A summary of the FDA review of safety issues with the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is now available. This includes reports of serious heart rhythm problems and other safety issues, including blood and lymph system disorders, kidney injuries, and liver problems and failure.

June 15, 2020 Update: Based on ongoing analysis and emerging scientific data, FDA has revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19 in certain hospitalized patients when a clinical trial is unavailable or participation is not feasible. We made this determination based on recent results from a large, randomized clinical trial in hospitalized patients that found these medicines showed no benefit for decreasing the likelihood of death or speeding recovery. This outcome was consistent with other new data, including those showing the suggested dosing for these medicines are unlikely to kill or inhibit the virus that causes COVID-19. As a result, we determined that the legal criteria for the EUA are no longer met. Please refer to the Revocation of the EUA Letter and FAQs on the Revocation of the EUA for Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate and Chloroquine Phosphate for more information

from you:

https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/26218/

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-a ... setting-or

you don't seem to understand what has or hasn't been approved regarding hydroxychloroquine, and the reasoning behind these decisions. why are you even commenting about it?
I didn't comment on anything. I linked an article.

Here's the source article:

"Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis
Harvey A Risch

American Journal of Epidemiology, kwaa093, https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwaa093
Published: 27 May 2020"

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/do ... 93/5847586

Are you going to say that the American Journal of Epidemiology is a bad journal?

I have read more articles on Hydrox than you have, I would guess. More than 50. I have talked to some infectious diseases doctor friends. I had seen the FDA action. I just found it interesting that there is such a split of opinion. By the way, Dr. Risch cites way more studies than you did.

What second citation to a journal are you talking about? Didn't think I cited to any journals. Just to two articles, the second one of which referred to the Risch study and the first was written by Risch.

Perhaps you should do more research. I like it's funny how often you don't do your homework.
And, if the Yale Dean of Public Health defends his prof's right to discuss the benefits, I think it's perfectly fine for me to link articles discussing what Risch believes and his recent paper and follow up. See below.

"Yale’s dean of public health defends right to argue hydroxychloroquine could save lives

‘I have championed maintaining open academic discourse, including what some may view as unpopular voices,’ dean says

The dean of Yale’s public health department, Dr. Sten Vermund, has come out in defense of his colleague’s right to explore and promote hydroxychloroquine as a viable treatment for coronavirus.

In a statement published Wednesday by Vermund, dean of the Yale School of Public Health within the Ivy League university’s School of Medicine, he said he champions “maintaining open academic discourse, including what some may view as unpopular voices. The tradition of academia is that faculty may do research, interpret their work, and disseminate their findings.”

The dean flagged Risch’s article in May in the American Journal of Epidemiology that cites evidence to support Risch’s belief that hydroxychloroquine is good to “use for out-patient infection with SARS-CoV-2.”

Vermund noted that if “persons disagree with Dr. Risch’s review of the literature, it would be advisable to disseminate the alternative scientific interpretations, perhaps through letters or other publications with alternative viewpoints to the American Journal of Epidemiology, Newsweek, or other outlets.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/yales-dea ... ave-lives/
argh!
eGriz Club
Posts: 7998
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 2:20 pm

PlayerRep wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 7:43 pm
PlayerRep wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:39 pm


I didn't comment on anything. I linked an article.

Here's the source article:

"Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis
Harvey A Risch

American Journal of Epidemiology, kwaa093, https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwaa093
Published: 27 May 2020"

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/do ... 93/5847586

Are you going to say that the American Journal of Epidemiology is a bad journal?

I have read more articles on Hydrox than you have, I would guess. More than 50. I have talked to some infectious diseases doctor friends. I had seen the FDA action. I just found it interesting that there is such a split of opinion. By the way, Dr. Risch cites way more studies than you did.

What second citation to a journal are you talking about? Didn't think I cited to any journals. Just to two articles, the second one of which referred to the Risch study and the first was written by Risch.

Perhaps you should do more research. I like it's funny how often you don't do your homework.
And, if the Yale Dean of Public Health defends his prof's right to discuss the benefits, I think it's perfectly fine for me to link articles discussing what Risch believes and his recent paper and follow up. See below.

"Yale’s dean of public health defends right to argue hydroxychloroquine could save lives

‘I have championed maintaining open academic discourse, including what some may view as unpopular voices,’ dean says

The dean of Yale’s public health department, Dr. Sten Vermund, has come out in defense of his colleague’s right to explore and promote hydroxychloroquine as a viable treatment for coronavirus.

In a statement published Wednesday by Vermund, dean of the Yale School of Public Health within the Ivy League university’s School of Medicine, he said he champions “maintaining open academic discourse, including what some may view as unpopular voices. The tradition of academia is that faculty may do research, interpret their work, and disseminate their findings.”

The dean flagged Risch’s article in May in the American Journal of Epidemiology that cites evidence to support Risch’s belief that hydroxychloroquine is good to “use for out-patient infection with SARS-CoV-2.”

Vermund noted that if “persons disagree with Dr. Risch’s review of the literature, it would be advisable to disseminate the alternative scientific interpretations, perhaps through letters or other publications with alternative viewpoints to the American Journal of Epidemiology, Newsweek, or other outlets.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/yales-dea ... ave-lives/
ok greenie, have it your way. you didn't comment, then. you posted a reply.
PlayerRep
Posts: 27551
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:06 am

argh! wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2020 9:07 am
PlayerRep wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 7:43 pm


And, if the Yale Dean of Public Health defends his prof's right to discuss the benefits, I think it's perfectly fine for me to link articles discussing what Risch believes and his recent paper and follow up. See below.

"Yale’s dean of public health defends right to argue hydroxychloroquine could save lives

‘I have championed maintaining open academic discourse, including what some may view as unpopular voices,’ dean says

The dean of Yale’s public health department, Dr. Sten Vermund, has come out in defense of his colleague’s right to explore and promote hydroxychloroquine as a viable treatment for coronavirus.

In a statement published Wednesday by Vermund, dean of the Yale School of Public Health within the Ivy League university’s School of Medicine, he said he champions “maintaining open academic discourse, including what some may view as unpopular voices. The tradition of academia is that faculty may do research, interpret their work, and disseminate their findings.”

The dean flagged Risch’s article in May in the American Journal of Epidemiology that cites evidence to support Risch’s belief that hydroxychloroquine is good to “use for out-patient infection with SARS-CoV-2.”

Vermund noted that if “persons disagree with Dr. Risch’s review of the literature, it would be advisable to disseminate the alternative scientific interpretations, perhaps through letters or other publications with alternative viewpoints to the American Journal of Epidemiology, Newsweek, or other outlets.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/yales-dea ... ave-lives/
ok greenie, have it your way. you didn't comment, then. you posted a reply.
I posted a very interesting article/opinion, by a prominent Yale epi prof, who had written about 250 peer-reviewed research articles, and later posted a link to his original research study released in May. If you don't find it interesting that there are studies, and prominent scientists and doctors, going both ways on this, subject that's fine with me. As you know, a big study concluding against Hydrox, had to be retracted because the data, or some of it, couldn't be verified. If I got the virus, I would want Hydrox immediately.
argh!
eGriz Club
Posts: 7998
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 2:20 pm

i am aware of the retracted study, and, as i wrote, that hydrox-q might be effective early in cases. i just clarified that it is probably only effective then, not when somebody has the full blown disease. also, i just said that the second 'journal', publication, whatever you want to call it, that you linked to, cited, referenced, probably wasn't the most reputable.

as for the three questionable individuals involved in the retracted study, they seem strikingly familiar to a segment of scientists working as professors in the u.s. who apparently have never been thoroughly vetted. would be curious to see how many of their studies could be replicated. i was once on a tenure committee for a guy who seems a lot like them. had over 30 exaggerations and falsehoods in his application for promotion. had many more questionable claims, and also clearly plagiarized the material for a class he taught without giving credit to the person who created it, and all the slides used. he had pals in higher places, and got promoted anyway. u.s. universities are infected by these guys.
PlayerRep
Posts: 27551
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:06 am

argh! wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:41 am
i am aware of the retracted study, and, as i wrote, that hydrox-q might be effective early in cases. i just clarified that it is probably only effective then, not when somebody has the full blown disease. also, i just said that the second 'journal', publication, whatever you want to call it, that you linked to, cited, referenced, probably wasn't the most reputable.

as for the three questionable individuals involved in the retracted study, they seem strikingly familiar to a segment of scientists working as professors in the u.s. who apparently have never been thoroughly vetted. would be curious to see how many of their studies could be replicated. i was once on a tenure committee for a guy who seems a lot like them. had over 30 exaggerations and falsehoods in his application for promotion. had many more questionable claims, and also clearly plagiarized the material for a class he taught without giving credit to the person who created it, and all the slides used. he had pals in higher places, and got promoted anyway. u.s. universities are infected by these guys.
What second journal/pubicaton did I link to? I linked to Newsweek, and to this this:

https://clashdaily.com/2020/07/yale-epi ... liticized/

It's an article discussing the Yale prof's view. It's very short. It's mostly quotes. It is certainly not a journal.
Last edited by PlayerRep on Sat Aug 01, 2020 3:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
p8nted
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 5:27 pm

Meanwhile back on topic

Boise posters are saying, on the MW boards, that the MWC just voted 8-3 to go to conference only games. New Mexico did not vote as the governor has asked them to not play this year.

Announcement pending on the NCAA meeting on Tuesday Aug 4th on fall sports.
Spanky2
Posts: 878
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2018 3:13 pm

p8nted wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2020 3:34 pm
Meanwhile back on topic

Boise posters are saying, on the MW boards, that the MWC just voted 8-3 to go to conference only games. New Mexico did not vote as the governor has asked them to not play this year.

Announcement pending on the NCAA meeting on Tuesday Aug 4th on fall sports.
The New Mexico Governor has good judgement. Those teams that attempt to play will likely cancel their seasons after two or three games.
User avatar
BozAngelesGriz
Posts: 538
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 8:43 pm

p8nted wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2020 3:34 pm
Meanwhile back on topic

Boise posters are saying, on the MW boards, that the MWC just voted 8-3 to go to conference only games. New Mexico did not vote as the governor has asked them to not play this year.

Announcement pending on the NCAA meeting on Tuesday Aug 4th on fall sports.
Best to stay off-track at this point. Gotta hit 17 pages, ya know.
"Stay on target"
Da Boyz Mom
eGriz Club
Posts: 2067
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 12:12 pm
Location: Land of Mañana

Spanky2 wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2020 4:16 pm
p8nted wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2020 3:34 pm
Meanwhile back on topic

Boise posters are saying, on the MW boards, that the MWC just voted 8-3 to go to conference only games. New Mexico did not vote as the governor has asked them to not play this year.

Announcement pending on the NCAA meeting on Tuesday Aug 4th on fall sports.
The New Mexico Governor has good judgement. Those teams that attempt to play will likely cancel their seasons after two or three games.
She actually has crap for judgment but I wouldn't expect you to know that unless you lived here.
Post Reply