Understand that I say "first" because I don't know that I won't just volunteer my time to sort through the rest of their data when there is a good moment. However, it feels like the world is moving too fast for now, and I can work nearly every waking hour and not come close to keeping up with the pace.
First congratulations for this nugget of gold. Thank you for sharing for free. It's the protocol that I've been sharing with everyone since Dr Peter McCullough first published in Annuals of Cardiovasular Medicine. Truthforhealth.org I am so appreciative for all the frontline covid 19 treating physicians like Tyson and Fareed. They rocked the Imperial Valley Health Supervisory Commitee meeting. I also very grateful for peeps like you for the statistical analyses. Thank you. Quick question- what's up with the rhino horn in the table?
Jan 13, 2022·edited Jan 13, 2022Liked by Mathew Crawford
This is a really interesting paper, not just for the science, but for what it represents.
Treat this as a preprint, which is to say that changes can be made where commenters convince us to make changes. We may soon upload it to a preprint server, though publication is less the point than presentation for the public.
Has anyone discussed setting up an alternative / non-censorable preprint server?
If it catches on, this is a way to bypass the old system entirely.
New journals and publishing infrastructure is a worthy long-term goal... https://www.datprotocol.com and https://ipfs.io have laid a lot of the technical groundwork already... but why not just put your preprint on arxiv.org like everybody does now? Even if they were to censor it, that outrage would be valuable in itself.
Thank you for sharing this study! I’m looking forward to telling everyone in my circle of influence to view it.
I found a typo in the penultimate paragraph of the discussion section. The word “that” appears twice: “ We believe that that the case for early ambulatory care for COVID-19 patients...”
So, this study would receive a "revise and resubmit" from any peer reviewed journal. The main problem is that the appropriate control group is never spelled out. It is true that given the Imperial county, CA data the expected number of deaths from the sample is much higher than that observed. If the patients presenting to All Valley Urgent Care constituted a random sample, this would be a knock down argument for the protocols. However, there is no way that patients presenting to a specific urgent care facility can be considered a random sample. This constitutes a convenience sample. Thus, to make specific claims one has to match the control patients to the treatment patients using something like a propensity score or some other means. To do that, we would need far more demographic information about the treatment groups, especially comorbidities, than is given; we only have ages and sexes in the study. How can I rule out the null hypothesis that this group of patients would likely have gotten better without any significant treatment or with standard treatment because they are generally healthy with few to no comorbidities? The data given in the study does not allow us to rule this out. Thus, this study gives us no reason to trust the hypothesis that the protocols do anything.
Thank you Matthew for this work. THIS will be how history will record the absolute failure of public health and the vast majority of those in the medical profession who simply followed orders from on high instead of making patient care their highest priority. It’s just shameful. Thank God for the brave doctors who kept their oath and saved so many lives.
Tyson and Fareed should look at treatment with 25OHD in moderate and severe patients in order to tamp down inflammation. With adequate levels of 25OHD, inflammation ordinarily gets tamped down by the immune system.
This study should reference and discuss the study by Accinelli, which found treatment initiation with HCQ after 72 hours from symptom onset to be the strongest correlation with mortality.
I preordered this book and just got a notice from Amazon saying, "The release of the item in the order below has been canceled by the publisher and we have canceled your pre-order." Do you know anything about this, Mathew? Censorship?
One question I have is on the hospitlization rate of the untreated. 20% sounds high to me. But is that due to the patients being those that seeked treatment via a Doctor, vs just those that had a positive test?
One thought I have on this is that this strikes me as exactly the kind of work Senator Ted Kennedy was fighting for back in the HIV pandemic days per RFK Jr's book. The idea of formalizing and leveraging Doctor's like Tyson, or groups like the FLCCC. It seems to me the answers to what needs to be changed, needs to be done where figured out but somehow not implemented. Or implemented but then compromised. I don't have a point here other than how do we keep making progress in this direction? How do we implement what was envisioned and ensure it stays in place?
What was the method of diagnosing covid? Distinguishing mild covid from flu is a fool's errand. I think that this problem with any study, including covid vaccine trials, makes the inclusion description very sketchy. For an accurate study inclusion description, I think that you have to look at anyone with ILI symptoms, no matter whether their PCR test is positive or not. False positive percents (1%) are lower than false negative percents (>20%). (False positive percents don't include unculturable positive results, which can be huge.) I think that you have to throw out PCR for clinical diagnosis altogether.
“Among 4,385 individuals sorted in both protocols and three severity levels, combined or excluded from this study, the mean age was 40.5±18.2 years and 12.8% were greater than twenty years of age.”
So, the majority of those treated were (very) young and therefore at minimal risk from the ‘rona. Disappointing sample. Are we upping the tools of the enemy?
The First Tyson/Fareed Study Text
First congratulations for this nugget of gold. Thank you for sharing for free. It's the protocol that I've been sharing with everyone since Dr Peter McCullough first published in Annuals of Cardiovasular Medicine. Truthforhealth.org I am so appreciative for all the frontline covid 19 treating physicians like Tyson and Fareed. They rocked the Imperial Valley Health Supervisory Commitee meeting. I also very grateful for peeps like you for the statistical analyses. Thank you. Quick question- what's up with the rhino horn in the table?
This is a really interesting paper, not just for the science, but for what it represents.
Treat this as a preprint, which is to say that changes can be made where commenters convince us to make changes. We may soon upload it to a preprint server, though publication is less the point than presentation for the public.
Has anyone discussed setting up an alternative / non-censorable preprint server?
If it catches on, this is a way to bypass the old system entirely.
New journals and publishing infrastructure is a worthy long-term goal... https://www.datprotocol.com and https://ipfs.io have laid a lot of the technical groundwork already... but why not just put your preprint on arxiv.org like everybody does now? Even if they were to censor it, that outrage would be valuable in itself.
Thank you for sharing this study! I’m looking forward to telling everyone in my circle of influence to view it.
I found a typo in the penultimate paragraph of the discussion section. The word “that” appears twice: “ We believe that that the case for early ambulatory care for COVID-19 patients...”
This is amazing, praise God for you and the other authors, thank you for sharing!
please pursue publication
So, this study would receive a "revise and resubmit" from any peer reviewed journal. The main problem is that the appropriate control group is never spelled out. It is true that given the Imperial county, CA data the expected number of deaths from the sample is much higher than that observed. If the patients presenting to All Valley Urgent Care constituted a random sample, this would be a knock down argument for the protocols. However, there is no way that patients presenting to a specific urgent care facility can be considered a random sample. This constitutes a convenience sample. Thus, to make specific claims one has to match the control patients to the treatment patients using something like a propensity score or some other means. To do that, we would need far more demographic information about the treatment groups, especially comorbidities, than is given; we only have ages and sexes in the study. How can I rule out the null hypothesis that this group of patients would likely have gotten better without any significant treatment or with standard treatment because they are generally healthy with few to no comorbidities? The data given in the study does not allow us to rule this out. Thus, this study gives us no reason to trust the hypothesis that the protocols do anything.
Thank you Matthew for this work. THIS will be how history will record the absolute failure of public health and the vast majority of those in the medical profession who simply followed orders from on high instead of making patient care their highest priority. It’s just shameful. Thank God for the brave doctors who kept their oath and saved so many lives.
Well done! 👍🏼
Get Ready For The Next One. The Next Plandemic: Smallpox, Marburg, or both?
https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/get-ready-for-the-next-one
Tyson and Fareed should look at treatment with 25OHD in moderate and severe patients in order to tamp down inflammation. With adequate levels of 25OHD, inflammation ordinarily gets tamped down by the immune system.
This study should reference and discuss the study by Accinelli, which found treatment initiation with HCQ after 72 hours from symptom onset to be the strongest correlation with mortality.
I preordered this book and just got a notice from Amazon saying, "The release of the item in the order below has been canceled by the publisher and we have canceled your pre-order." Do you know anything about this, Mathew? Censorship?
One question I have is on the hospitlization rate of the untreated. 20% sounds high to me. But is that due to the patients being those that seeked treatment via a Doctor, vs just those that had a positive test?
One thought I have on this is that this strikes me as exactly the kind of work Senator Ted Kennedy was fighting for back in the HIV pandemic days per RFK Jr's book. The idea of formalizing and leveraging Doctor's like Tyson, or groups like the FLCCC. It seems to me the answers to what needs to be changed, needs to be done where figured out but somehow not implemented. Or implemented but then compromised. I don't have a point here other than how do we keep making progress in this direction? How do we implement what was envisioned and ensure it stays in place?
What was the method of diagnosing covid? Distinguishing mild covid from flu is a fool's errand. I think that this problem with any study, including covid vaccine trials, makes the inclusion description very sketchy. For an accurate study inclusion description, I think that you have to look at anyone with ILI symptoms, no matter whether their PCR test is positive or not. False positive percents (1%) are lower than false negative percents (>20%). (False positive percents don't include unculturable positive results, which can be huge.) I think that you have to throw out PCR for clinical diagnosis altogether.
“Among 4,385 individuals sorted in both protocols and three severity levels, combined or excluded from this study, the mean age was 40.5±18.2 years and 12.8% were greater than twenty years of age.”
So, the majority of those treated were (very) young and therefore at minimal risk from the ‘rona. Disappointing sample. Are we upping the tools of the enemy?