P
PaulinVA
Guest
So, there you have it.
Evidence against Hydroxychloroquine
- Thread starter LeafByNiggle
- Start date
- Status
So, there you have it.
Y
YooHyuk
Guest
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Those are from two different stories. The first story is about other corona viruses from 2003, not one that causes covid-19.
The French study referred to is flawed because it was a non-randomized trial. Why is that important? The French study shows exactly how a non-randomized trial can be corrupted by the non-random way in which patients were assigned to the treated group vs the control group. The paper says the treated group was made up of patients from one facility, while patients from another facility were put into the non-treated control group. Therefore if there was any initial imbalance in the seriousness of patients from one facility vs another, that imbalance can pollute the findings. There are many reasons why there could be an imbalance. One facility might treat patients in a different socio-economic class, or be more understaffed, and thus have patients that start off doing worse. Making this the control group is guaranteed to make the treated group look good, even if they were being treated with placebo. As I said, more disinformation from Breitbart.
The French study referred to is flawed because it was a non-randomized trial. Why is that important? The French study shows exactly how a non-randomized trial can be corrupted by the non-random way in which patients were assigned to the treated group vs the control group. The paper says the treated group was made up of patients from one facility, while patients from another facility were put into the non-treated control group. Therefore if there was any initial imbalance in the seriousness of patients from one facility vs another, that imbalance can pollute the findings. There are many reasons why there could be an imbalance. One facility might treat patients in a different socio-economic class, or be more understaffed, and thus have patients that start off doing worse. Making this the control group is guaranteed to make the treated group look good, even if they were being treated with placebo. As I said, more disinformation from Breitbart.
Last edited:
I
ImJustPro
Guest
Well, this thread aged very badly.
This study has now been retracted:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/...avirus20&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
This study has now been retracted:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/...avirus20&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
T
Theo520
Guest
Nope, the authors pulled/retracted the referenced study published in The Lancet after over 100 scientists complained about the quality of the paper.
The authors are blaming their data source but I don’t buy it, they just did shoddy work.
The Lancet retracts large study on hydroxychloroquine
"A first-year statistics major could tell you about major flaws in the design of the analysis," one expert said.
www.nbcnews.com
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
This was not the study that opened the thread. And more recently, trials of HCQ have been stopped or curtailed because of lack of benefit. What has not aged well is HCQ and the claims Trump made for it.
T
Theo520
Guest
That study is kinda useless as well.
None have suggested HCQ is an effective treatment for those experiencing respiratory failure. It must be given much earlier in the disease cycle.
an at-risk person suffering from bilateral pneumonia and needs a vent doesn’t need an immune system damper at that point…at that point, the damage cascade is such that almost nothing will help.
Hydroxychloroquine has NOT been being recommended for its lung-fixing properties in the current situation. It’s been posited as a possible treatment for the virus itself…and likely would have to be given in early stages of infection to see if it was effective.
Last edited:
K
Kaninchen
Guest
It now appears to be useless rather than harmful.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It has not been shown to help even then. There is no point in the disease progression, either as a preventative or as a very early treatment, where HCQ has shown to be effective. Even now after more information from trials has come it, the benefit is still not shown, and trials are winding down.LeafByNiggle:
That study is kinda useless as well.
None have suggested HCQ is an effective treatment for those experiencing respiratory failure. It must be given much earlier in the disease cycle.
T
Theo520
Guest
Don’t get upset just because your study was usless, I’ve posted multiple studies that show benefits when used early as intended.
More from your study
V
Victoria33
Guest
Also, a lot of folks say the Zinc is necessary in examining the Hydroxychloquine combo and it’s effectiveness.
There was another story with a big positive this past week…
There was another story with a big positive this past week…
T
Theo520
Guest
Yes, Zinc is supposedly the real hero when given early with HCQ, but only a few studies are including it.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I’m not upset. I am just calmly correcting you.LeafByNiggle:
Don’t get upset just because your study was usless, I’ve posted multiple studies that show benefits when used early as intended.
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
You’re still not acknowledging the flaws in the takedown articles. That Lancet article was harmful, not just useless.
If doctors give it too late in the disease cycle, of course it’s going to be useless. Which you are pounding the table about without acknowledging that they did give it too late.
The positive studies have been fairly consistent about two things: (1), if a doctor is going to prescribe it, do it early, as soon as symptoms appear and this can be done with home care; (2), give it with zinc. It seems at this point that literally every negative study is missing at least one if not both of these elements. At this point in time, I’ll suggest that any study or trial without both of those elements present is useless, they’re just representing more obfuscation so as to clear the path for the Big Pharma-preferred medications.
What seems to be not understood here is the degree to which money talks in Big Pharma circles just as it does elsewhere. Or has anyone been tracking the scams that Big Medicine, Big Testing and Big Pharma have been perpetrating in the name of Covid-19?
Last edited:
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
Here’s another paper that was just retracted:
Same source firm, Surgicide, as was implicated in the Lancet paper that was also retracted. The original paper was an attempt to clear a class of hypertension drugs that target ACE and ARB for use with Covid-19 patients. There were reasons to believe these drugs might actually worsen a Covid-19 infection due to how Covid-19 attacks cells. Hence due to the wide use of these drugs, such findings are critical and being wrong about this will likely kill people. But a certain class of people wanted these drugs tagged as “no harm” and had both financial and professional reasons for that, and they got what they wanted with the original paper. That paper has now been withdrawn.
Look at one scam here, millions of doses of vaccine have already been pre-ordered even though we don’t have any idea whether it’s a good vaccine or not. At what cost? Now who would want to be in the first ranks of people to take a vaccine with no history behind it and with no liability to the makers? Versus taking a dozen doses of a far cheaper medicine with a long history along with an OTC supplement? Who wins, who loses? Follow the money.
Another scam: someone posted an insurance statement through their employer about how the insurance company was charged nearly $10k for one Covid-19 PCR test. Don’t remember how much was ultimately the patient’s responsibility. No wonder the test centers want a doctor referral before admitting a patient for a test.
Same source firm, Surgicide, as was implicated in the Lancet paper that was also retracted. The original paper was an attempt to clear a class of hypertension drugs that target ACE and ARB for use with Covid-19 patients. There were reasons to believe these drugs might actually worsen a Covid-19 infection due to how Covid-19 attacks cells. Hence due to the wide use of these drugs, such findings are critical and being wrong about this will likely kill people. But a certain class of people wanted these drugs tagged as “no harm” and had both financial and professional reasons for that, and they got what they wanted with the original paper. That paper has now been withdrawn.
Look at one scam here, millions of doses of vaccine have already been pre-ordered even though we don’t have any idea whether it’s a good vaccine or not. At what cost? Now who would want to be in the first ranks of people to take a vaccine with no history behind it and with no liability to the makers? Versus taking a dozen doses of a far cheaper medicine with a long history along with an OTC supplement? Who wins, who loses? Follow the money.
Another scam: someone posted an insurance statement through their employer about how the insurance company was charged nearly $10k for one Covid-19 PCR test. Don’t remember how much was ultimately the patient’s responsibility. No wonder the test centers want a doctor referral before admitting a patient for a test.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
There is nothing to acknowledge, as I am not depending on those articles. To me they are irrelevant. What I am correcting is the false notion that something has been shown to be true when it hasn’t. Even after all this time, when you would expect, if HCQ were beneficial, to see some definite benefit, it is not materialized. I am still hoping that it does materialize, because I think it would be great if an effective early-stage treatment were found. But does not mean I’m going to let my wishful thinking proclaim a truth I can’t support.LeafByNiggle:
You’re still not acknowledging the flaws in the takedown articles.
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
Awhile ago, I wrote about Big Pharma corrupting the CDC via its partnerships in the CDC Foundation. But crickets. Or naysayers. No one wants to believe that said corruption exists when all that matters is scoring points off Trump.
Listen to the video here:
www.zerohedge.com
From the article (emphasis author’s):
Christine Grady is NIH Chief, Bioethics. She claims to be a doctor. Only problem is she is not a medical doctor, only a nurse. Her PhD is in philosophy, but you have to search the fine print to find that out.
https://clinicalcenter.nih.gov/meet-our-doctors/cgrady.html
Also nothing there about her personal life. While it’s not uncommon to not want to mention a personal life, in this case, the omission appears to be intentional. Because she is apparently married to Dr Fauci!!! Yes, that Anthony Fauci.
en.wikipedia.org
But no public disclosure that would lead to asking about possible conflicts of interest between the two. I’m not making accusations here, just a couple of observations, but this pair of observations is dang interesting and I sure would like to know why this was never disclosed.
These rabbit holes can run deep.
smh
Listen to the video here:
ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com
From the article (emphasis author’s):
Here’s another interesting data point:
Christine Grady is NIH Chief, Bioethics. She claims to be a doctor. Only problem is she is not a medical doctor, only a nurse. Her PhD is in philosophy, but you have to search the fine print to find that out.
https://clinicalcenter.nih.gov/meet-our-doctors/cgrady.html
Also nothing there about her personal life. While it’s not uncommon to not want to mention a personal life, in this case, the omission appears to be intentional. Because she is apparently married to Dr Fauci!!! Yes, that Anthony Fauci.
Christine Grady - Wikipedia
But no public disclosure that would lead to asking about possible conflicts of interest between the two. I’m not making accusations here, just a couple of observations, but this pair of observations is dang interesting and I sure would like to know why this was never disclosed.
These rabbit holes can run deep.
smh
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
More silliness from the right-wing financial blog, Zero Hedge! Case in point: They make a big deal out of the fact that the NIH Chief of Bioethics is not a medical doctor, but a Ph.D in philosophy. Imagine that! The person who oversees the ethics at NIH has a Ph.D. in philosophy! I can’t imagine what philosophy has to do with ethics. An orthopedic surgeon would be more qualified (Not!). No, Zero Hedge seriously overplayed their hand on this one. Philosophy is exactly the right field to be an expert in if one is to oversee ethics.
The rest of the charges are not worth mentioning, because people are tired of conspiracy theories. Don’t fall for it!
The rest of the charges are not worth mentioning, because people are tired of conspiracy theories. Don’t fall for it!
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
That bit about Grady and Fauci did not come from Zero Hedge, I found that elsewhere. If you had actually bothered to read the article, you would have known that.
You have a fair point about bioethics and philosophy couched somewhere inside the dripping sarcasm. Okay.
But every private company I ever worked for required me to disclose any potential personal conflicts of interest I might have had via blood or marriage and that definitely included husband and wife. You have been quick to deny Hunter Biden’s conflict of interest with his father, but quicker to speak up about Jared and Ivanka Kushner’s conflict of interest with Ivanka’s father. Aren’t you the least bit curious to find out if there is a conflict of interest between Drs. Fauci and Grady, husband and wife? Or is it that it cannot possibly be any kind of conflict, let alone corruption? I’d like to at least hear them appear together to explain it in their own words. Which is way, way, way more than I can say for you.
I also know you didn’t read the article because there is a video in there of the editor in chief of the Lancet (which you trumpeted at one time about the original HCQ takedown article) talking with the editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine about how Big Pharma exerts their influence for papers to show their desired conclusions. Aren’t you the least bit curious in hearing about that kind of corruption? Oh wait, it’s not possible, Big Pharma companies are all saints so nothing to see there.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
What makes you think the marriage between Fauci and Grady was kept a secret from the NIH?LeafByNiggle:
That bit about Grady and Fauci did not come from Zero Hedge, I found that elsewhere. If you had actually bothered to read the article, you would have known that.
You have a fair point about bioethics and philosophy couched somewhere inside the dripping sarcasm. Okay.
But every private company I ever worked for required me to disclose any potential personal conflicts of interest I might have had via blood or marriage and that definitely included husband and wife…
One guy’s opinion, even if he is the editor in chief of the Lacet is only midly interesting to me. Certainly not enough for me to bother watching a video of him.
- Status