One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Now that the election is over - Covid hysteria is evaporating
Page <<first <prev 3 of 3
Jan 27, 2021 09:45:24   #
ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island
 
JohnCorrespondent wrote:
I watched the first 6 minutes of it (thus far). She says many deaths would not have happened -- but it's not clear why they would not have happened -- she drops the subject instead of completing it. Obviously she means "because of lies" but she doesn't identify a particular lie that makes sense in the context. Or at least I didn't get it. Close to that, she talks about how there _are_ treatments for Covid beyond what we are told -- and that's believable, but maybe not as significant as she indicates. It may be that _hospitals_ can't offer all the treatments because they don't have enough trained staff to handle all the cases. (I mean, I can see how "treatments" relates to "deaths would not have happened" but she doesn't make the connection really clear and the amount of significance or the context seem a little fuzzy to me.)

(But here's a treatment that anybody can do at home: "proning". I saw a video about it circulating around and I think it looks plausible. I think the public should have been told about that. But all I know about that is the one little video which appears to be common sense.)

She (Dr. Simone Gold) talks a little while about how the name changed from Wuhan virus to Covid-19 and she calls that a Big Lie but I am unimpressed. It's not _that_ important to me what the disease is called. But I can understand why a phrase like "Chinese virus" used by a person like Trump in a country like the U.S. could be inflammatory in a wrong way -- and have been hearing how that is playing out from an Asian-American I know -- and _that_ is significant.

Then she talks about hydroxychloroquine. I looked it up. My understanding (and I'm not a doctor, I'm just a person who reads sporadically) is that in places where malaria is a big problem, taking hydroxychloroquine is a lot better than not taking it, because malaria is so much worse than hydroxychloroquine. However, hydroxychloroquine has numerous side-effects, some of which could be serious ( https://www.drugs.com/sfx/hydroxychloroquine-side-effects.html ), so, taking hydroxychloroquine in a place where there's very low risk of contracting malaria might be worse than not taking it.

An additional factor in the significance of hydroxychloroquine during this pandemic might be a false assurance that it's effective against Covid-19 -- but I only listened for 6 minutes, so if she addressed that point then I haven't heard it yet.

In your own post you say "real actual, practicing doctors, rather than political hacks, who have ties to Bill Gates". I don't know a lot of doctors really well up close. I have my own doctor in Kaiser. Would you think he is a "political hack" with "ties to Bill Gates"? I think he's a real "front-line doctor" whether he joins an organization by that name or not. He told me a few weeks ago that every other person he sees (meaning: 1 of every 2) (or: 50% of his patients) is a Covid case. He's just a medical doctor, the kind where I get my annual physical checkup; he's not a Covid specialist. He didn't tell me any of these things you or that Dr. Simone Gold says.

There's another doctor acquaintance I have and what he says about Covid is to take lots of Vitamin D. He has to take Covid seriously because his hospital's running low on capacity because of so many cases of it. I don't have any reason to think he's a "political hack" with "ties to Bill Gates". He weighs in sometimes on informal discussions about Covid and he doesn't say anything like what you or that Dr. Simone Gold are saying. He mentioned that he has a meter (that would be a CO2 meter, most likely) by which he can estimate the amount of risk of Covid transmission in a room.

Regarding "ties to Bill Gates": Are we supposed to be suspicious of Bill Gates -- why? You didn't spell that out. Are we supposed to think a lot of people have "ties to Bill Gates" -- why? Is it because he's a billionaire -- and unlike the one in the White House, this time it's supposedly an _untrustworthy_ billionaire? (there's some sarcasm in that).

One could think Dr. Fauci might be a "political hack" only because he has a position in government (and anything "government" might have a "political" element). However, I think the opposite. In my opinion, Donald Trump is the political hack and Dr. Fauci has been a moderating influence and a real expert in infectious diseases (whereas Donald Trump's expertise is in manipulating gullible crowds). And _somebody_ should have such a position (as Fauci's) in government -- that doesn't automatically make them a "political hack".

Dr. Fauci has been an okay communicator but maybe not a really good communicator. If so, it might be because a lot of people at his level of government get fired by Trump from merely speaking the truth openly; so, he had to be careful how much he said and how he said it. Also sometimes scientists aren't good public communicators -- the skills needed for doing research aren't the same as the skills for public speaking, and some people don't have both. Also, I believe Dr. Fauci was (wrongfully) _prevented_ (by the Trump Administration) from speaking more often to the public.

The Trump Administration's been bad for scientific communication. " 'LIKE A HAND GRASPING': TRUMP APPOINTEES DESCRIBE THE CRUSHING OF THE C.D.C.
BY THE NEW YORK TIMES | DECEMBER 16, 2020
Kyle McGowan, a former chief of staff at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and his deputy, Amanda Campbell, go public on the Trump administration’s manipulation of the agency. " https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/strategy/hand-grasping-trump-appointees-describe-crushing-cdc

- ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~

I've seen a few nurses and doctors on video and I've seen some of what they're saying in the news. One thing they've been saying a lot since the pandemic started is that they don't have enough medical equipment such as masks. I had some extra N95 masks left over from fire season, and donated them to nurses, because they need such equipment more than I do, and there hasn't been enough of it to go around.

I don't know how anyone can look at the news regularly and not think that doctors and nurses -- a great many of them working on the front lines -- are very concerned about the spread of Covid-19 and do take it seriously and want us to "stay home" and -- when we do go out -- "wear masks" if we have to go out in public among people.

I'm retired and don't have to work now. Since the pandemic started, I stay away from people almost all the time, wear a mask when I'm out in public, and support my trusted favorite cafe which now has only take-out, no dining in.

I think my "mask" ideas are realistic; the mask isn't going to stop _me_ from catching Covid; what's going to stop me from catching Covid (knock on wood) is not being around people in rooms more than just short times or rarely. What's going to stop me from transmitting Covid to _others_ (if I do catch it -- then I could be contagious even when I don't know I've got it) is (1) my mask and (2) hardly ever being near anyone, especially not in small rooms.

I hope I don't break a bone or get any other medical condition requiring a doctor, because there might not be a doctor available because the hospitals and medical staff are being stressed to the breaking point, and also if I do have to go in then I might catch Covid there.

I've already lost one friend to Covid (death), expect to lose one more during the next several months (death by Covid -- that's what I think will happen), and have been hearing second-hand about several deaths due to Covid (people my acquaintances care about). I hope that my family stays safe -- we're spread out, living in different places.
I watched the first 6 minutes of it (thus far). S... (show quote)

==========================
Judging by the amount of time and effort you put into your post, I believe you are honest in your beliefs and willing to consider alternative view points. In the interest of brevity, I offer the following comments:

You state: "She says many deaths would not have happened -- but it's not clear why they would not have happened -- she drops the subject instead of completing it. Obviously she means "because of lies" but she doesn't identify a particular lie that makes sense in the context. Or at least I didn't get it.

It's pretty obvious to me she was referring to the hit job by the prominent medical journal that caused all the trials of HCQ to be terminated, but then later found to be false and withdrawn. But the damage was done, and the media never gave the same attention to the retraction of the article or re-instituting the cancelled medical trials. She was probably also talking about the deliberate attempts to sabotage and deprive patients from using cheap, and effective medical treatments (i.e. Hydroxychloroquine) in favor of more expensive pharmaceutical alternatives (think Remdesivir) or the arrival of the CV-19 vaccines that resulted in many needless deaths. I refer you to the following:

WHO "Solidarity" and UK "Recovery" Clinical Trials of Hydroxychloroquine using Potentially Fatal Doses
https://www.ageofautism.com/2020/06/who-solidarity-and-uk-recovery-clinical-trials-of-hydroxychloroquine-using-potentially-fatal-doses.html

To sum up:
1. In the UK Recovery trial, and in WHO Solidarity trials, HCQ is used in a non-therapeutic, toxic and potentially lethal dose.
2. HCQ is furthermore being given, in clinical trials, too late in the disease course to determine its value against SARS-CoV-2.
3. Collection of limited safety data in the Solidarity trials serves to protect trial investigators and sponsors from disclosures of expected adverse drug effects, including death.
4. It appears that WHO has tried to hide information on the hydroxychloroquine doses used in its Solidarity trial.  Fortunately, the information is discoverable from registries of its national trials.
5. The conclusions to be drawn are frightening:
6. 
 a)  WHO and other national health agencies, universities and charities have conducted large clinical trials that were designed so hydroxychloroquine would fail to show benefit in the treatment of Covid-19, perhaps to advantage much more expensive competitors and vaccines in development.
7. 
 b)  In so doing, these agencies and charities have de facto conspired to increase the number of deaths in these trials.
8. 
 c)   In so doing, they have conspired to deprive billions of people from potentially benefiting from a safe and inexpensive drug, when used properly, during a major pandemic.  This might contribute to prolongation of the pandemic, massive economic losses and many increased cases and deaths. 
Posted by Age of Autism on June 16, 2020 at 06:02 AM in Current Affairs | Permalink

What is a toxic dose?  All experts agree. "... chloroquine has a small toxic to therapeutic margin," according to Goldfrank's Toxicologic Emergencies.  The drug is very safe when used correctly, but not a lot more can potentially kill.  Prof. Nicholas White, a Wellcome Trust Principal Research Fellow and expert in malaria treatment, who attended both WHO consultations on the chloroquines, has confirmed this.  Careful monitoring of electrolyte levels and an EKG can prevent most problems.

The WHO hired a consultant to explore the toxicity of hydroxychloroquine in 1979. The consultant, H. Weniger, looked at 335 episodes of adult poisoning by chloroquine drugs.  Weniger on page 5 notes that a single dose of 1.5-2 grams of hydroxychloroquine base "may be fatal." 

The Recovery trial used 1.86 grams hydroxychloroquine base (equal to 2400 mg of hydroxychloroquine) in the first 24 hours for treatment of already very ill, hospitalized Covid-19 patients, a potentially lethal dose.  The Canadian and Norwegian trials used 2,000 mg of HCQ, or 1.55 grams of HCQ base in the first 24 hours. Each trial gave patients a cumulative dose during the first 24 hours that, when given as a single dose, has been documented to be lethal. (The drug's half-life is about a month, so the cumulative amount is important.)  
The doses used in these trials are not recommended for therapy of any medical condition, which I confirmed with Goodman and Gilman's Pharmacology textbook, the drug's US label, and the online subscription medical encyclopedia UptoDate. 

Excessive, dangerous HCQ dosing continues to be used in WHO's Solidarity trials. These trials are not, in fact, testing the benefits of HCQ on Covid-19, but rather are testing whether patients survive toxic, non-therapeutic doses.


I would like to bring to your attention the fact that "Hydroxychloroquine was approved for medical use in the United States in 1955.[2] It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines.[5] In 2017, it was the 128th most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than five million prescriptions.[6][7]" I would also like to point out that you can make a case against any drug, including aspirin (stomach bleeding).

As to your comments about Bill Gates and Tony Fauci, I have posted numerous times with my thoughts on those two individuals.

Tony Fauci’s cavalcade of frauds
https://www.brasscheck.com/video/aids-faucis-first-fraud/?omhide=true

Jan 27, 2021 13:49:29   #
JohnCorrespondent
 
ACP45 wrote:
==========================
Judging by the amount of time and effort you put into your post, I believe you are honest in your beliefs and willing to consider alternative view points. In the interest of brevity, I offer the following comments:

You state: "She says many deaths would not have happened -- but it's not clear why they would not have happened -- she drops the subject instead of completing it. Obviously she means "because of lies" but she doesn't identify a particular lie that makes sense in the context. Or at least I didn't get it.

It's pretty obvious to me she was referring to the hit job by the prominent medical journal that caused all the trials of HCQ to be terminated, but then later found to be false and withdrawn. But the damage was done, and the media never gave the same attention to the retraction of the article or re-instituting the cancelled medical trials. She was probably also talking about the deliberate attempts to sabotage and deprive patients from using cheap, and effective medical treatments (i.e. Hydroxychloroquine) in favor of more expensive pharmaceutical alternatives (think Remdesivir) or the arrival of the CV-19 vaccines that resulted in many needless deaths. I refer you to the following:

WHO "Solidarity" and UK "Recovery" Clinical Trials of Hydroxychloroquine using Potentially Fatal Doses
https://www.ageofautism.com/2020/06/who-solidarity-and-uk-recovery-clinical-trials-of-hydroxychloroquine-using-potentially-fatal-doses.html

To sum up:
1. In the UK Recovery trial, and in WHO Solidarity trials, HCQ is used in a non-therapeutic, toxic and potentially lethal dose.
2. HCQ is furthermore being given, in clinical trials, too late in the disease course to determine its value against SARS-CoV-2.
3. Collection of limited safety data in the Solidarity trials serves to protect trial investigators and sponsors from disclosures of expected adverse drug effects, including death.
4. It appears that WHO has tried to hide information on the hydroxychloroquine doses used in its Solidarity trial.  Fortunately, the information is discoverable from registries of its national trials.
5. The conclusions to be drawn are frightening:
6. 
 a)  WHO and other national health agencies, universities and charities have conducted large clinical trials that were designed so hydroxychloroquine would fail to show benefit in the treatment of Covid-19, perhaps to advantage much more expensive competitors and vaccines in development.
7. 
 b)  In so doing, these agencies and charities have de facto conspired to increase the number of deaths in these trials.
8. 
 c)   In so doing, they have conspired to deprive billions of people from potentially benefiting from a safe and inexpensive drug, when used properly, during a major pandemic.  This might contribute to prolongation of the pandemic, massive economic losses and many increased cases and deaths. 
Posted by Age of Autism on June 16, 2020 at 06:02 AM in Current Affairs | Permalink

What is a toxic dose?  All experts agree. "... chloroquine has a small toxic to therapeutic margin," according to Goldfrank's Toxicologic Emergencies.  The drug is very safe when used correctly, but not a lot more can potentially kill.  Prof. Nicholas White, a Wellcome Trust Principal Research Fellow and expert in malaria treatment, who attended both WHO consultations on the chloroquines, has confirmed this.  Careful monitoring of electrolyte levels and an EKG can prevent most problems.

The WHO hired a consultant to explore the toxicity of hydroxychloroquine in 1979. The consultant, H. Weniger, looked at 335 episodes of adult poisoning by chloroquine drugs.  Weniger on page 5 notes that a single dose of 1.5-2 grams of hydroxychloroquine base "may be fatal." 

The Recovery trial used 1.86 grams hydroxychloroquine base (equal to 2400 mg of hydroxychloroquine) in the first 24 hours for treatment of already very ill, hospitalized Covid-19 patients, a potentially lethal dose.  The Canadian and Norwegian trials used 2,000 mg of HCQ, or 1.55 grams of HCQ base in the first 24 hours. Each trial gave patients a cumulative dose during the first 24 hours that, when given as a single dose, has been documented to be lethal. (The drug's half-life is about a month, so the cumulative amount is important.)  
The doses used in these trials are not recommended for therapy of any medical condition, which I confirmed with Goodman and Gilman's Pharmacology textbook, the drug's US label, and the online subscription medical encyclopedia UptoDate. 

Excessive, dangerous HCQ dosing continues to be used in WHO's Solidarity trials. These trials are not, in fact, testing the benefits of HCQ on Covid-19, but rather are testing whether patients survive toxic, non-therapeutic doses.


I would like to bring to your attention the fact that "Hydroxychloroquine was approved for medical use in the United States in 1955.[2] It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines.[5] In 2017, it was the 128th most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than five million prescriptions.[6][7]" I would also like to point out that you can make a case against any drug, including aspirin (stomach bleeding).

As to your comments about Bill Gates and Tony Fauci, I have posted numerous times with my thoughts on those two individuals.

Tony Fauci’s cavalcade of frauds
https://www.brasscheck.com/video/aids-faucis-first-fraud/?omhide=true
========================== br Judging by the amoun... (show quote)


Thanks. You have made at least a couple of good explanations here, and educated me a little bit.

Jan 27, 2021 14:51:28   #
Navigator
 
JohnCorrespondent wrote:
Thank you for that clarification.

One thing I have noticed (in agreement with part of what you write here) is that California (where I am) is easing its restrictions. Offhand, I think it is a foolish thing for California to do at this time.

I'm not _that_ dense as you say; but I have a low tolerance for ambiguity. Lately I've been trying to be clear by saying when I'm being sarcastic, so that people will know which sentence is straight and which is sarcasm. I do find your clarified post here far easier to understand than your earlier ones. We don't all start with the same context.
Thank you for that clarification. br br One thing... (show quote)


I would offer condolences that you have to live in California but I have to live in NY. The political climate is just as oppressive but the weather is not as nice. Fifty years ago I lived in California; I should have stopped somewhere in between.

 
 
Jan 28, 2021 07:30:45   #
ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island
 
JohnCorrespondent wrote:
Thanks. You have made at least a couple of good explanations here, and educated me a little bit.


Here is another site to take a look at that has a lot of infomation on both HCQ as well as other alternatives:
https://c19study.com/





Jan 28, 2021 20:27:18   #
JohnCorrespondent
 
Navigator wrote:
I would offer condolences that you have to live in California but I have to live in NY. The political climate is just as oppressive but the weather is not as nice. Fifty years ago I lived in California; I should have stopped somewhere in between.


I've heard that NY and "California" are similarly "Democrat" or "Left". I put California in quotes because there's a lot of variation in politics in different parts of the state.

I grew up "somewhere in between"; I enjoyed the land; most of the people were nice enough, to me anyway (I'm white, straight, male, and often quiet, so only some of them were able to find anything to pick at) but I can't stand their main politics and main religion. Even their culture seems too homogeneous. As a person who would prefer to speak ideas that _haven't_ already been agreed on (rather than just repeat what everybody else says), I found it quite stifling to grow up in a small community there.

Jan 29, 2021 04:40:20   #
jelun
 
Grugore wrote:
So what you're saying is that if Trump had handled things differently, the deep state wouldn't have committed massive voter fraud... BWAHAHAHA!


The proposal is that if Trump was competent the voters who swapped off to Biden would not have made the switch and we would be stuck with the totalitarian for another four years. Trump sabotaged himself with his lack of empathy and inability to attract a team of people who were able to help him govern.

Jan 29, 2021 04:56:10   #
jelun
 
JohnCorrespondent wrote:
I've heard that NY and "California" are similarly "Democrat" or "Left". I put California in quotes because there's a lot of variation in politics in different parts of the state.

I grew up "somewhere in between"; I enjoyed the land; most of the people were nice enough, to me anyway (I'm white, straight, male, and often quiet, so only some of them were able to find anything to pick at) but I can't stand their main politics and main religion. Even their culture seems too homogeneous. As a person who would prefer to speak ideas that _haven't_ already been agreed on (rather than just repeat what everybody else says), I found it quite stifling to grow up in a small community there.
I've heard that NY and "California" are ... (show quote)


New York, and all the other places, are the same as California.
As a matter of fact, what seemed to be a very conservative area when I first settled here ten years agohas since last spring come together around equitable justice and for the first time in recent memory gone blue for federal and state positions. Now we just need to do that in a local election and progressives can lead for a decade or a dozen years.

It's astonishing that raving right wingers can reject the fact that the pendulum swings. They ignore that Pete Wilson won statewide office in California from 1983-1999. And then came two "anyone but" governors before Dems. Nunes is repeatedly elected, for heaven's sake.
Anyway, I do appreciate your more moderate voice. Thanks for speaking out.

 
 
Jan 29, 2021 05:06:54   #
jelun
 
ACP45 wrote:
Here is another site to take a look at that has a lot of infomation on both HCQ as well as other alternatives:
https://c19study.com/


And then there is this.
https://www.practicalpainmanagement.com/resources/news-and-research/hydroxychloroquine-covid-preventive-still-news

UK researchers looked at data from those with rheumatoid arthritis and lupus who were taking the drug prior to the pandemic in search of more clues to its efficacy.
The team analyzed data from 194,637 patients with diagnoses of either RA or SLE. Of these, 30,569 had received two or more prescriptions of HCQ in the six months prior to March 1, 2020. The patients who received HCQ were younger (median age 63 years) than non-users (median age 66 years) and primarily women (76.3%).

The researchers adjusted for variables such as sex, age, ethnicity, and use of other immunosuppressive drugs. Other variables included BMI, hypertension, diabetes, heart, liver, and respiratory disease (excluding asthma), kidney disease, and cancer. The primary outcome measure was mortality due to COVID-19, as recorded on the death certificate.

Findings: HCQ and COVID Prevention in Patients with Rheumatic Disease
Between March 1, 2020 and July 13, 2020, 547 people in the cohort with RA or SLE died of COVID-19, 70 of whom were regular users of HCQ. The difference between deaths of users and non-users was 0.008%. The results showed no evidence that previous treatment with HCQ had a beneficial effect on COVID-19 mortality.

“Taken together, our findings do not provide any strong support for a major protective effect from ongoing routine hydroxychloroquine use,” the authors wrote in their paper.4 They also pointed out that their research demonstrates the safe and effective use of the OpenSAFELY platform for studying the effects of medicines in order to inform regulatory bodies engaged in decision-making in circumstances where there is a lack high-quality randomized trial data. However, they also noted that, because of the observational nature of their study, there is a still uncertainty that can only be addressed in large scale RCTs.

Jan 29, 2021 13:23:29   #
ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island
 
jelun wrote:
And then there is this.
https://www.practicalpainmanagement.com/resources/news-and-research/hydroxychloroquine-covid-preventive-still-news

UK researchers looked at data from those with rheumatoid arthritis and lupus who were taking the drug prior to the pandemic in search of more clues to its efficacy.
The team analyzed data from 194,637 patients with diagnoses of either RA or SLE. Of these, 30,569 had received two or more prescriptions of HCQ in the six months prior to March 1, 2020. The patients who received HCQ were younger (median age 63 years) than non-users (median age 66 years) and primarily women (76.3%).

The researchers adjusted for variables such as sex, age, ethnicity, and use of other immunosuppressive drugs. Other variables included BMI, hypertension, diabetes, heart, liver, and respiratory disease (excluding asthma), kidney disease, and cancer. The primary outcome measure was mortality due to COVID-19, as recorded on the death certificate.

Findings: HCQ and COVID Prevention in Patients with Rheumatic Disease
Between March 1, 2020 and July 13, 2020, 547 people in the cohort with RA or SLE died of COVID-19, 70 of whom were regular users of HCQ. The difference between deaths of users and non-users was 0.008%. The results showed no evidence that previous treatment with HCQ had a beneficial effect on COVID-19 mortality.

“Taken together, our findings do not provide any strong support for a major protective effect from ongoing routine hydroxychloroquine use,” the authors wrote in their paper.4 They also pointed out that their research demonstrates the safe and effective use of the OpenSAFELY platform for studying the effects of medicines in order to inform regulatory bodies engaged in decision-making in circumstances where there is a lack high-quality randomized trial data. However, they also noted that, because of the observational nature of their study, there is a still uncertainty that can only be addressed in large scale RCTs.
And then there is this. br https://www.practicalp... (show quote)


You have got to be kidding me! "Their approach, published in The Lancet Rheumatology this month (January 2021), was unique in that it looked at the effect of ongoing pre-exposure use of HCQ on COVID-19 infection or severe outcomes.4"

The information you are citing is from a study published by the Lancet and later found to be fraudlent and then retracted.



Jan 29, 2021 13:52:54   #
JohnCo
 
jelun wrote:
And then there is this.
https://www.practicalpainmanagement.com/resources/news-and-research/hydroxychloroquine-covid-preventive-still-news

UK researchers looked at data from those with rheumatoid arthritis and lupus who were taking the drug prior to the pandemic in search of more clues to its efficacy.
The team analyzed data from 194,637 patients with diagnoses of either RA or SLE. Of these, 30,569 had received two or more prescriptions of HCQ in the six months prior to March 1, 2020. The patients who received HCQ were younger (median age 63 years) than non-users (median age 66 years) and primarily women (76.3%).

The researchers adjusted for variables such as sex, age, ethnicity, and use of other immunosuppressive drugs. Other variables included BMI, hypertension, diabetes, heart, liver, and respiratory disease (excluding asthma), kidney disease, and cancer. The primary outcome measure was mortality due to COVID-19, as recorded on the death certificate.

Findings: HCQ and COVID Prevention in Patients with Rheumatic Disease
Between March 1, 2020 and July 13, 2020, 547 people in the cohort with RA or SLE died of COVID-19, 70 of whom were regular users of HCQ. The difference between deaths of users and non-users was 0.008%. The results showed no evidence that previous treatment with HCQ had a beneficial effect on COVID-19 mortality.

“Taken together, our findings do not provide any strong support for a major protective effect from ongoing routine hydroxychloroquine use,” the authors wrote in their paper.4 They also pointed out that their research demonstrates the safe and effective use of the OpenSAFELY platform for studying the effects of medicines in order to inform regulatory bodies engaged in decision-making in circumstances where there is a lack high-quality randomized trial data. However, they also noted that, because of the observational nature of their study, there is a still uncertainty that can only be addressed in large scale RCTs.
And then there is this. br https://www.practicalp... (show quote)


This post is easy to believe, after the seeing the way Trump pushed HCQ, the way health officials & experts reacted, and the way Trump treats health officials & experts (which further subtracts from his already-low credibility).

For this and most topics, I'll never personally know as much as the experts do, but I can get clues about who's more trustworthy and who's less trustworthy, for some topics.

-JohnCo (same person as JohnCorrespondent)

Jan 29, 2021 14:10:55   #
Navigator
 
ACP45 wrote:
You have got to be kidding me! "Their approach, published in The Lancet Rheumatology this month (January 2021), was unique in that it looked at the effect of ongoing pre-exposure use of HCQ on COVID-19 infection or severe outcomes.4"

The information you are citing is from a study published by the Lancet and later found to be fraudlent and then retracted.


In addition, except for early speculation, supporters of HCQ made no claims about its efficacy as a Covid-19 preventative and it was soon apparent it was not effective in advanced cases of Covid-19. Despite this and despite several studies and massive anecdotal evidence that HCQ was effective when used in the early stages of Covid-19, almost all of the orthodox studies insisted on studying the effect of HCQ on the prevention of Covid-19 and its effectiveness in advanced cases. Kind of like studying the effectiveness of a parachute preventing death in an airplane crash if you wear it inside the airplane or open it 50 feet above the ground.

 
 
Jan 31, 2021 06:08:13   #
ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island
 
Navigator wrote:
In addition, except for early speculation, supporters of HCQ made no claims about its efficacy as a Covid-19 preventative and it was soon apparent it was not effective in advanced cases of Covid-19. Despite this and despite several studies and massive anecdotal evidence that HCQ was effective when used in the early stages of Covid-19, almost all of the orthodox studies insisted on studying the effect of HCQ on the prevention of Covid-19 and its effectiveness in advanced cases. Kind of like studying the effectiveness of a parachute preventing death in an airplane crash if you wear it inside the airplane or open it 50 feet above the ground.
In addition, except for early speculation, support... (show quote)


Good analogy!

Jan 31, 2021 06:17:20   #
ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island
 
JohnCo wrote:
This post is easy to believe, after the seeing the way Trump pushed HCQ, the way health officials & experts reacted, and the way Trump treats health officials & experts (which further subtracts from his already-low credibility).

For this and most topics, I'll never personally know as much as the experts do, but I can get clues about who's more trustworthy and who's less trustworthy, for some topics.

-JohnCo (same person as JohnCorrespondent)


Yes, JohnCo, it is easy to believe because it fits your pre-conceived notion that since Trump pushed it, it must be ineffective and dangerous. You don't investigate the source of the information, and as I pointed out, the Lancet Study you find so believable was a FRAUD, and later removed. The studies that I posted showing the effectiveness of HCQ and Ivermectin you conveniently overlooked or disregarded, again, because they did not fit your pre-conceived notion of ineffectiveness because of the Trump taint. Friggin unbelievable! Why do I even bother.

Jan 31, 2021 07:11:58   #
RandyBrian
 
ACP45 wrote:
Yes, JohnCo, it is easy to believe because it fits your pre-conceived notion that since Trump pushed it, it must be ineffective and dangerous. You don't investigate the source of the information, and as I pointed out, the Lancet Study you find so believable was a FRAUD, and later removed. The studies that I posted showing the effectiveness of HCQ and Ivermectin you conveniently overlooked or disregarded, again, because they did not fit your pre-conceived notion of ineffectiveness because of the Trump taint. Friggin unbelievable! Why do I even bother.
Yes, JohnCo, it is easy to believe because it fits... (show quote)


If I may, ACP, I would say you bother because there ARE a lot of folks like me who DO listen to science and medical experts, and your research is extremely helpful to us in figuring out what is true and what is politically motivated disinformation. I can't speak for anyone else, but I deeply appreciate it when you share what you have learned. I try to do the same, in my own way. There are far too many people who criticize and ignore President Trump because of his supposed "lack of credibility", but at the same time refuse to see the constant lies and mistakes made by people like Dr. Fauci and the democrats. Like you said....they only accept what fits their narrative. A sure sign of a weak intelligence.

Jan 31, 2021 09:57:40   #
ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island
 
RandyBrian wrote:
If I may, ACP, I would say you bother because there ARE a lot of folks like me who DO listen to science and medical experts, and your research is extremely helpful to us in figuring out what is true and what is politically motivated disinformation. I can't speak for anyone else, but I deeply appreciate it when you share what you have learned. I try to do the same, in my own way. There are far too many people who criticize and ignore President Trump because of his supposed "lack of credibility", but at the same time refuse to see the constant lies and mistakes made by people like Dr. Fauci and the democrats. Like you said....they only accept what fits their narrative. A sure sign of a weak intelligence.
If I may, ACP, I would say you bother because ther... (show quote)


Thanks. I appreciate your comment. That is the reason why I post what I do.

Page <<first <prev 3 of 3
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2021 IDF International Technologies, Inc.