And what happens when it's just wrong but they act on it as right?This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Is this what happens?This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
And what happens when it's just wrong but they act on it as right?This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Is this what happens?This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Originally posted by SJW
Once again another useless post by JRSCOOLDUDE.
Originally posted by snowcat
Don't let the e-thugs and faggots get to you when they quote your posts and write stupid shit.^^ Fact CheckedOriginally posted by JRSC00LUDE
I say stupid shit all the time.
She has her religious beliefs which can be separated from treating and preventing the Virus. The Lancet study that was against HCQ had to even retract their studies as the data was based on HCQ that was used when it was already too late or some studies that used way too much HCQ at toxic levels
By the way, she is not the only doctor there who believed in the effectiveness of HCQ. By the way why does it hurt to try it? It has been known as safe and effective drug for decades that has treated other conditions and used as a prophylactic. Yet Doctors are stopped from being able to prescribe it, or pharmacies are not even dispensing the drug overriding a choice between the patient and doctor.
The irony of this paragraph.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Incorrect.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
If someone wantonly rejects science and chooses to believe in, and advocate for, demonstrably false medical and scientific positions, it absolutely causes their perspective to be irrelevant. They are not acting in good faith - why the fuck would you or anyone else trust them?
Well, I know why YOU would, but why would anyone else?
Pointless statistic:
Not really a victory but Canada fell another place in the covid rankings for # of confirmed cases. We peaked at 9th back in March/April I believe and now have fallen the 22nd and there's a few countries coming up quick to pass us again.
Sounds like we should have some sort of large celebration to mark the occasionThis quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
See Crank. See Crank Walk. Walk Crank Walk.
OrgyThis quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Send the Airdrie address plzThis quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
I have a hole saw and a few sheets of drywall left over.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
See Crank. See Crank Walk. Walk Crank Walk.
Or the actual focus can be on the patients who received treatment that worked for them or the other doctors who vouch for the drug as well, or the studies showing the effectiveness of the drug. You know, actual results and not medical people who have not personally treated any patients.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Once drywall gets wet enough you'll bust right through it, only a rookie needs a saw.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Originally posted by SJW
Once again another useless post by JRSCOOLDUDE.
Originally posted by snowcat
Don't let the e-thugs and faggots get to you when they quote your posts and write stupid shit.^^ Fact CheckedOriginally posted by JRSC00LUDE
I say stupid shit all the time.
Studies have shown that the drug is not effective: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020...event-covid-19 and https://www.bbc.com/news/51980731This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Then again, if you wanted to know whether or not that was the case, you could have easily found that information yourself. That tells me that your ideological motivations are preventing you from taking heed of the red flags that are obvious in this scenario.
Are you an anti-vaxxer, by chance?
Pretty much.... 10 studies show XYZ is not effective. One study is redacted, not because it showed XYZ was effective but rather the data was deemed not reliable enough.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
OMG LOOK XYZ IS A MIRACLE DRUG, ITS A CONSPIRACY THEY ARE TRYING TO HIDE IT.
No ... one set of doctors just didn't have adequate controls, it doesn't change all the other studies that found similar results. Studies are peer reviewed so that other people can evaluate the data and are sometimes withdrawn, it happens all the time.
Edit: here's the actual redaction... it's not even because the drug turned out to be effective, it's that the original group wouldn't transfer over their data / client list / reports / etc.
After publication of our Lancet Article,1 several concerns were raised with respect to the veracity of the data and analyses conducted by Surgisphere Corporation and its founder and our co-author, Sapan Desai, in our publication. We launched an independent third-party peer review of Surgisphere with the consent of Sapan Desai to evaluate the origination of the database elements, to confirm the completeness of the database, and to replicate the analyses presented in the paper.
Our independent peer reviewers informed us that Surgisphere would not transfer the full dataset, client contracts, and the full ISO audit report to their servers for analysis as such transfer would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements. As such, our reviewers were not able to conduct an independent and private peer review and therefore notified us of their withdrawal from the peer-review process.
Last edited by pheoxs; 07-29-2020 at 03:16 PM.
Anyone who is suggesting HCQ has been proven to work/not work at this point, hasn't actually dug into the research and is likely just repeating what the media said. The premise from the start has been that HCQ is beneficial if a) given early and b) combined with zinc. There are a few studies that support this, however they aren't anywhere conclusive and support the need for further proper studies to be done.
What's been deemed proper studies demonstrating that HCQ is ineffective have included fraudulent data, incorrect dosage, using it after patients illness has become quite severe, or not using zinc.There I've yet to see a study that addresses the 2 main premises that proponents are claiming. There's been serious issues with studies on this on both sides. Until they've actually addressed what's being claimed, they haven't refuted anything, they're attacking a strawman. In the meantime, some doctors who've been using this as it's claimed, have been seeing great results, and should be allowed to continue to do so.
Last edited by HuMz; 07-29-2020 at 04:31 PM.
Free to make your own choices but not free from the consequences.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
I am user #49Originally posted by rage2
Shit, there's only 49 users here, I doubt we'll even break 100
Studies have shown its effectiveness. Patients that have used it on when done at the proper time early on with Zinc and Arithromycin and at the correct dosage have found it to be highly effective.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Henry Ford Health System Study: https://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...nt/5368661002/
Epidimiologist at Yale Harvey Risch explains it's effectiveness: https://justthenews.com/politics-pol...ating-covid-19 and https://academic.oup.com/aje/article...waa093/5847586
Another study showing the efficacy of Zinc amplifying the treatment with HCQ and AZ ---> https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...757v1.full.pdf
Early on, Dr Didier Raoult had been treating it on patients showing it seffectiveness, but France then banned its use due to the Lancet study, which was then retracted. Studies showed 97.8% Cure rate --->https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...77893920302179
Training dogs to detect Covid?! Whoa!
I am user #49Originally posted by rage2
Shit, there's only 49 users here, I doubt we'll even break 100
I'm taking that you didn't read some of the information in those studies or dig into the authors?
So yes, you should absolutely be very critical of the videos you consume and the content you read. Much of what you've based your argument on is thin.
And no, you still should not listen to that quack. We good?
No comments on this one as I didn't have time to dive into it, and based on what I found below, I opted not to.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
I found it odd that you'd use an opinion article as a reference point, but taking the view that this is more reflective of the partisanized media landscape, I gave it a read and tried to understand it.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Looking into his articles, he published this article on May 27. He references this in his OP. On the first page of the PDF, it calls out his conflict of interest and also tries to dismiss it. That may or may not be important, depending on your view.
If you read the article, you'll note oddities in his decisions and logic. For example, on page 8 he discusses data from a study of 42 participants; not blinded, not randomized. And 6 patients withdrew.
Many of the studies he references have similar issues, though not all of them do. But that is worth noting.
Looking into him more, he has also published a second article early in July. This is probably when he came across many people's radar, and probably yours. But it's important to note that the numerous errors in his references and leaps in logic make it difficult to take what he says for face value, though I do feel that continued research into HcQ is valuable.
This was retracted: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....05.20088757v2This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
I find it tough to take this one at face value given that he has been banned from contributing to research studies in the past due to falsifying numbers.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
He has also been heavily criticized for attaching his name to any article that comes from his institute.
So.....only the research done by whom do we trust? Oh wait, that study was wrong so we pulled it....ok then. If a doctor successfully treated 350 patients with this drug than why is “news” hammering her on some video about aliens and shit from years ago and not finding these 350 patients and dispelling the fact that they were in fact treated, and cured??
Sounds like so many here are enjoying this virus. They refuse to listen to anything that may offer a glimmer or hope for a cure. Just as many studies showing that masks have questionable abilities to stop spread yet he we are, wearing masks. The cure could come from a fucking 10 yr old kid for all I care. If it works, well it works. Probably isn’t enough to profit form a easy fix anyway. I guess I’ll keep with the narrative being fed us. No miracle drug, just wear a mask and shut up.
Sorry guys. Just so sick of the news, constant hiding and rebuttal of information, fear, and the fact we’re going for a locakdown again like it or not.
I mean, I empathize with you dude, but I'm not about to abandon good science, checks and balances, and due diligence just because I'm emotionally exhausted. Moreover, I'm not going to facilitate conversations or humor ideas that perpetual misinformation.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
It is in times like this that we must be prudent, and given that @SportEL has, in the past, spread messages encouraging the "questioning of the narrative", it only seems fitting that his is questioned as well. That's kind of the point of all this, no? So that, at the end of it, the information that has withstood the rigors of inquiry help us shape policy. Am I not right in that?
And yet, when we enact that process, it's silencing the people and pushing a narrative. Or something. It's hard to keep up because, funnily enough, the goalposts tied to this conversation keep being moved.
Also, your assertion that people questioning the reliability of information coming from sources with conflicts of interest, weak medical/scientific oversight, and a general lack of authenticity as the equivalent as "enjoying the virus" is pretty funny.