MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Can touching a barbell in the gym get you sick with the coronavirus?
- Thread starter Michael Scally MD
- Start date
Last edited:
Villain
Member
Hardly a pandemic. Come on doc.
At least one good thing to come out of the lockdowns, travel restrictions, and social distancing, is a global reduction of CO2 emissions by 7%. Which just happens to be the UN target for reducing emmisions yearly for 2030, to prevent a climate catastrophe. With the help of the pandemic restrictions and The World Econmic Forum the world will become greener, more sustainable, and we can "build back better". Where have I heard that before 
? And other interesting things..
And just for fun..
? And other interesting things..And just for fun..
Last edited:
As the coronavirus surges again in most states, thousands of school districts must figure out the safest way to educate their students. Many began the year in remote-only mode, but now face mounting pressure from parents to open school buildings. Others are offering some level of in-person instruction, but must consider a quick pivot to distance learning if the virus is spreading quickly in their communities.
With these rapidly shifting dynamics, EdWeek asked Dr. Ashish K. Jha to offer some guidance for schools. In his previous role as director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, and now, as dean of Brown University’s School of Public Health, Jha has been a leading voice on the importance of using science and data to guide decisions about the pandemic. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Link above ^
Biosecurity and Politics (Giorgio Agamben)
A translation of Agamben’s blog, 11 May 2020. The original is here.What is striking about the reactions to the apparatuses of exception that have been put in place in our country (and not only in this one) is the inability to observe them beyond the immediate context in which they seem to operate. Rare are those who attempt to interpret them as symptoms and signs of a broader experiment — as any serious political analysis would require — in which what is at stake is a new paradigm for the governance of men and things. Already in a book published seven years ago, now worth rereading carefully (Tempêtes microbiennes, Gallimard 2013), Patrick Zylberman described the process by which health security, hitherto on the margins of political calculations, was becoming an essential part of state and international political strategies. At issue is nothing less than the creation of a sort of “health terror” as an instrument for governing what are called “worst case scenarios.” It is according to this logic of the worst that already in 2005 the World Health Organization announced “2 to 150 million deaths from bird flu approaching,” suggesting a political strategy that states were not yet ready to accept at the time. Zylberman shows that the apparatus being suggested was articulated in three points: 1) the construction, on the basis of a possible risk, of a fictitious scenario in which data are presented in such a way as to promote behaviors that allow for governing an extreme situation; 2) the adoption of the logic of the worst as a regime of political rationality; 3) the total organization of the body of citizens in a way that strengthens maximum adherence to institutions of government, producing a sort of superlative good citizenship in which imposed obligations are presented as evidence of altruism and the citizen no longer has a right to health (health safety) but becomes juridically obliged to health (biosecurity).
What Zylberman described in 2013 has now been duly confirmed. It is evident that, apart from the emergency situation, linked to a certain virus that may in the future be replaced by another, at issue is the design of a paradigm of governance whose efficacy will exceed that of all forms of government known thus far in the political history of the West. If already, in the progressive decline of ideologies and political beliefs, security reasons allowed citizens to accept limitations on their liberty that they previously were unwilling to accept, biosecurity has shown itself capable of presenting the absolute cessation of all political activity and all social relations as the maximum form of civic participation. Thus it was possible to see the paradox of organizations of the left, traditionally in the habit of claiming rights and denouncing violations of the constitution, accepting limitations on liberty made by ministerial decree devoid of any legal basis and which even fascism couldn’t dream of imposing.
It is evident — and government authorities themselves do not cease to remind us of it — that so-called “social distancing” will become the model of politics that awaits us, and that (as representatives of a so-called “task force” announced, whose members are in an obvious conflict of interest with the role that they are expected to exercise) advantage will be taken of this distancing to substitute digital technological apparatuses everywhere in place of human physicality, which as such becomes suspect of contagion (political contagion, let it be understood). University lessons, as MIUR has already recommended, will be stably online from next year; you will no longer recognize yourself by looking at your face, which might be covered with a mask, but through digital devices that recognize bio-data which is compulsorily collected; and any “crowd,” whether formed for political reasons or simply for friendship, will continue to be prohibited.
At issue is an entire conception of the destinies of human society from a perspective that, in many ways, seems to have adopted the apocalyptic idea of the end of the world from religions which are now in their sunset. Having replaced politics with the economy, now in order to secure governance even this must be integrated with the new paradigm of biosecurity, to which all other exigencies will have to be sacrificed. It is legitimate to ask whether such a society can still be defined as human or whether the loss of sensible relations, of the face, of friendship, of love can be truly compensated for by an abstract and presumably completely fictitious health security.
May 11, 2020
Giorgio Agamben
So the science is.. "Furthermore, while a randomized study is necessary for drugs, which are often expensive and can have harmful effects, there are few downsides to the simple act of respiratory etiquette."
3) the total organization of the body of citizens in a way that strengthens maximum adherence to institutions of government, producing a sort of superlative good citizenship in which imposed obligations are presented as evidence of altruism and the citizen no longer has a right to health (health safety) but becomes juridically obliged to health (biosecurity).
Respiratory etiquette.
Would letting coronavirus infect the broad US and global population be a safe and effective means of ending the COVID-19 pandemic?
Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, of Stanford University's Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research is a signatory of the 'Great Barrington Declaration,' which proposes to "allow those at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk."
Marc Lipsitch, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, a signatory of the 'John Snow Memorandum' which refutes the argument, responds.
Effects of SARS-CoV-2 Infection on Male Sex-related Hormones in Recovering Patients
Background: A novel coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causing the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), may attack testes by angiotensin-converting enzyme 2.
Objective: To assess whether SARS-CoV-2 infection can affect sex-related hormones and testicular function in recovering patients.
Materials and methods: The patients were separately classified according to the duration of viral shedding (long-term positive vs normal-term group, with the former cases having a duration >50 days) and disease severity (moderate vs severe group). Differences in sex-related hormone levels were compared between groups and linear regression analysis was used to compare the associations of testosterone (T) and estradiol with various clinical and laboratory factors.
Results: A total of 39 COVID-19 patients were included in this study. The mean T level was in the normal reference range while the mean estradiol level was above the normal limit. There were no significant differences between the long-term positive and normal-term groups in T (p=0.964), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH; p=0.694), luteinizing hormone (LH; p=0.171), prolactin (PRL; p=0.836) or T/LH (p=0.512). However, estradiol was higher in the normal-term group than the long-term positive group (p<0.001).
Moreover, there were also no significant differences between the moderate and severe groups in sex-related hormones, duration of viral shedding, or serum biochemical or inflammation indicators. Additionally, regression analyses showed that there were no associations between the T level and the clinical and laboratory factors, while estradiol was negatively associated with the duration of viral shedding.
Conclusion: In males infected with SARS-CoV-2, most sex-related hormones (T, FSH and LH levels) remain within the normal reference ranges after recovery from COVID-19, and no significant associations were observed between T level and disease duration or severity. At present, there is insufficient evidence to show that SARS-CoV-2 causes hypogonadism and sterility, but the potential risk should not be ignored.
Xu H, Wang Z, Feng C, Yu W, Chen Y, Zeng X, Liu C. Effects of SARS-CoV-2 Infection on Male Sex-related Hormones in Recovering Patients. Andrology. 2020 Nov 5. doi: 10.1111/andr.12942. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 33152165. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/andr.12942
Background: A novel coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causing the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), may attack testes by angiotensin-converting enzyme 2.
Objective: To assess whether SARS-CoV-2 infection can affect sex-related hormones and testicular function in recovering patients.
Materials and methods: The patients were separately classified according to the duration of viral shedding (long-term positive vs normal-term group, with the former cases having a duration >50 days) and disease severity (moderate vs severe group). Differences in sex-related hormone levels were compared between groups and linear regression analysis was used to compare the associations of testosterone (T) and estradiol with various clinical and laboratory factors.
Results: A total of 39 COVID-19 patients were included in this study. The mean T level was in the normal reference range while the mean estradiol level was above the normal limit. There were no significant differences between the long-term positive and normal-term groups in T (p=0.964), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH; p=0.694), luteinizing hormone (LH; p=0.171), prolactin (PRL; p=0.836) or T/LH (p=0.512). However, estradiol was higher in the normal-term group than the long-term positive group (p<0.001).
Moreover, there were also no significant differences between the moderate and severe groups in sex-related hormones, duration of viral shedding, or serum biochemical or inflammation indicators. Additionally, regression analyses showed that there were no associations between the T level and the clinical and laboratory factors, while estradiol was negatively associated with the duration of viral shedding.
Conclusion: In males infected with SARS-CoV-2, most sex-related hormones (T, FSH and LH levels) remain within the normal reference ranges after recovery from COVID-19, and no significant associations were observed between T level and disease duration or severity. At present, there is insufficient evidence to show that SARS-CoV-2 causes hypogonadism and sterility, but the potential risk should not be ignored.
Xu H, Wang Z, Feng C, Yu W, Chen Y, Zeng X, Liu C. Effects of SARS-CoV-2 Infection on Male Sex-related Hormones in Recovering Patients. Andrology. 2020 Nov 5. doi: 10.1111/andr.12942. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 33152165. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/andr.12942
At least one good thing to come out of the lockdowns, travel restrictions, and social distancing, is a global reduction of CO2 emissions by 7%. Which just happens to be the UN target for reducing emmisions yearly for 2030, to prevent a climate catastrophe. With the help of the pandemic restrictions and The World Econmic Forum the world will become greener, more sustainable, and we can "build back better". Where have I heard that before
And just for fun..
From the first video.. 5:00
World Bank/IMF Exposed: COVID Aid Conditional On Imposing Extreme Lockdowns, Curfews
World Bank/IMF Exposed: COVID Aid Conditional On Imposing Extreme Lockdowns, Curfews
by Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/28/2020 - 03:30
Via GreatGameIndia.com,
Huge foreign loans are given to sovereign nations by the World Bank, IMF and the likes. But the conditions that come attached to these loans are seldom told by governments to their citizens.
A recent case in Belarus has exposed the conditions laid by these agencies for loans being provided for COVID-19. The President of Belarus has exposed that the World Bank coronavirus aid comes with conditions for imposing extreme lockdown measures, to model their coronavirus response on that of Italy and even changes in the economic policies which he refused as being “unacceptable”.
Additional conditions which do not apply to the financial part are unacceptable for Belarus, Belarus President Aleksandr Lukashenko said when speaking about external lending during a meeting to discuss support measures for the real economic sector on the part of the banking system, reported Belarusian Telegraph Agency, BelTA.
Aleksandr Lukashenko asked the participants of the meeting how things were with the provision of foreign credit assistance to Belarus.
At the same time, he stressed that additional conditions which do not apply to the financial part are unacceptable for the country.
According to the president, the World Bank has showed interest in Belarus’ coronavirus response practices.
Belarus is one of the only European countries that has not implemented strict coronavirus containment measures. The no-restriction situation is such that even the non-essential services remain open. The football league of Belarus is still being played. The only restriction kind-of step that Belarus took till now is that the school holidays have been extended.
Lukashenko is of the opinion that a complete lockdown was completely unnecessary. Similar, views have been expressed by many renowned scientists as well. Recently, an Indian doctor has debunked the official narrative on Coronavirus. He emphasizes that ‘stress affects health’ and said that fear isn’t necessary because eventually people will develop natural immunity to this virus. He is one of the few people to advocate the opinion that life must continue uninterrupted.
The President of Belarus is not the first one to have exposed the pressure exerted by global agencies amidst the coronavirus crisis to further their agenda.
Earlier, in a shocking development the President of Madagascar made a sensational claim that the WHO offered him $20m bribe to poison COVID-19 cure called COVID-19 Organics made from Artemisia.
The Tanzanian President kicked out WHO from the country after Goat and Papaya samples came COVID-19 positive. Days after the Tanzanian move, Burundi also kicked out WHO Coronavirus Team from the country for interference in internal matters.It was also revealed in an intercepted human intelligence report that Bill Gates offered $10 million bribe for a forced Coronavirus vaccination program in Nigeria. After which, an Italian politician demanded the arrest of Bill Gates in the Italian parliament. She also exposed Bill Gates’ agenda in India and Africa, along with the plans to chip the human race through the digital identification program ID2020.
Last edited:
[OA] Why men's health?
The question of why a new international focus on men’s health was never more poignant than currently in the time of a new pandemic caused by the COVID-19 virus. The early and mid-term data from this infection have shown that men are especially likely to be victims of COVID-19.
A recent study in Frontiers in Public Health analyzed the early experience in China where the pandemic began[1]. The data reported by the authors showed that the likelihood of contracting the virus were similar in both genders, men were 2.4 times more likely to die from COVID-19 that their female counterparts irrespective of age and comorbidities. Similarly, men were more likely to have severe problems from their illness than women.
This is not surprising, however, as similar gender disparity was found in disease severity and mortality in the SARS outbreak. Globally, men are 60% more likely than women to suffer severe illness or death from COVID-19 [2].
Why this gender disparity?
Are men truly the weaker sex?
Are there other areas that favor women over men in the health setting?
What are the sociological ramifications of men’s illness and early death?
What international efforts are underway to change the plight of men?
These and other questions in men’s health remain controversial and answers yet poorly documented. …
Carson CC. Why men's health? Postgrad Med. 2020 Nov 6:1-3. doi: 10.1080/00325481.2020.1805867. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 33156726. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00325481.2020.1805867
The question of why a new international focus on men’s health was never more poignant than currently in the time of a new pandemic caused by the COVID-19 virus. The early and mid-term data from this infection have shown that men are especially likely to be victims of COVID-19.
A recent study in Frontiers in Public Health analyzed the early experience in China where the pandemic began[1]. The data reported by the authors showed that the likelihood of contracting the virus were similar in both genders, men were 2.4 times more likely to die from COVID-19 that their female counterparts irrespective of age and comorbidities. Similarly, men were more likely to have severe problems from their illness than women.
This is not surprising, however, as similar gender disparity was found in disease severity and mortality in the SARS outbreak. Globally, men are 60% more likely than women to suffer severe illness or death from COVID-19 [2].
Why this gender disparity?
Are men truly the weaker sex?
Are there other areas that favor women over men in the health setting?
What are the sociological ramifications of men’s illness and early death?
What international efforts are underway to change the plight of men?
These and other questions in men’s health remain controversial and answers yet poorly documented. …
Carson CC. Why men's health? Postgrad Med. 2020 Nov 6:1-3. doi: 10.1080/00325481.2020.1805867. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 33156726. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00325481.2020.1805867
Similar threads
