Hydroxychloroquine rated ‘most effective therapy’ by doctors for coronavirus:

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1cthlctrth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Zaccheus said:
Without official announcements from medical authorities, I am skeptical of the claim that it works on covid-19.
Click to expand...
Real medical authorities do not conduct medical research like an American Idol winner is selected. I am not looking up the poll because it is not a valid research tool. That alone should tip the wise reader off to the difference between politics and science.
 
Boy! I guess it’s time to cuff and stuff the president, making him do the perp walk into jail! Maybe Hillary could make a citizen’s arrest? Maybe Chris Matthews would feel that old tingle once again…

Is this what the “media” has lowered itself to these days? Non-credible hypocrites who form and program public opinion. I refuse to be used for their political agenda.

The fact is that immunosuppressants do slow the body’s killing of itself via an over-reaction to the virus. In some cases, they can slow it enough to save the life - while leaving sufficient immune response to fight the virus itself.
 
pnewton said:
40.png
Zaccheus:
Without official announcements from medical authorities, I am skeptical of the claim that it works on covid-19.
Click to expand...
Real medical authorities do not conduct medical research like an American Idol winner is selected. I am not looking up the poll because it is not a valid research tool. That alone should tip the wise reader off to the difference between politics and science.
Click to expand...
Correct. So the 97% “consensus” on global warming is “not a valid” determiner of anything. Hopefully that will be the last we hear of “consensus” science.

Good for you!
 
HarryStotle said:
40.png
pnewton:
40.png
Zaccheus:
Without official announcements from medical authorities, I am skeptical of the claim that it works on covid-19.
Click to expand...
Real medical authorities do not conduct medical research like an American Idol winner is selected. I am not looking up the poll because it is not a valid research tool. That alone should tip the wise reader off to the difference between politics and science.
Click to expand...
Correct. So the 97% “consensus” on global warming is “not a valid” determiner of anything. Hopefully that will be the last we hear of “consensus” science.

Good for you!
Click to expand...
There is a difference between the consensus of actual research scientists who’ve done actual research on a subject, and the results of a poll.
 
Zaccheus said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
40.png
pnewton:
40.png
Zaccheus:
Without official announcements from medical authorities, I am skeptical of the claim that it works on covid-19.
Click to expand...
Real medical authorities do not conduct medical research like an American Idol winner is selected. I am not looking up the poll because it is not a valid research tool. That alone should tip the wise reader off to the difference between politics and science.
Click to expand...
Correct. So the 97% “consensus” on global warming is “not a valid” determiner of anything. Hopefully that will be the last we hear of “consensus” science.

Good for you!
Click to expand...
There is a difference between the consensus of actual research scientists who’ve done actual research on a subject, and the results of a poll.
Click to expand...
There isn’t much of a difference.

There has been no reliable survey of “actual research scientists” regarding global warming to date. Every one of the supposedly “peer reviewed” surveys have been shown to be just as unreliable as any poll.
 
Jbrady said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Interesting. So doctors, and presumably scientists, who research or show some interest in some issue in science have a “pre-existing preference” or “bias.”

So how does that sentiment impact the claims of climate scientists? Perhaps their findings are all “unsound,” as well?

So we “trust” the experts until we can’t trust them?
Click to expand...
That’s why we have peer review. And then corroboration, replication and confirmation. It doesn’t mean much if it hasn’t jumped through all these hoops, as climate research has.
Click to expand...
Ironically, here is a peer reviewed paper showing peer review is a seriously flawed process.


The Lancet’s editor, Richard Horton takes a slightly different view of peer review.
The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding…We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong .[6]
Click to expand...
He rightly states that peer review is more about the acceptability and not the validity of a finding.
 
Last edited:
There is a type of study called a meta analysis. That would be conglomerating multiple studies to find what is most likely true. However, this requires actual research first. It is only valid in an area that has already been well researched. Comparing global warming to this poll is either disingenuous, or profoundly lacking in knowledge of general science. This is no current research data on this drug versus the COVID 19.

I am all for its use, but heck, I am all for marijuana being used to treat it, or a placebo, for that matter. If this drug gives hope, the I am for it. Maybe it is time to bring back branding of patent medicines - Doctor Donald’s miracle elixir, good for corona, flu, or whatever ails you, with a proprietary blend of HCQ, laudanum, covfefe, and McDonald secret sauce.

Why not? No need for all this unreliable sciency-schmiency stuff.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
There is a type of study called a meta analysis. That would be conglomerating multiple studies to find what is most likely true.
Click to expand...
A well done meta-analysis can be reliable if the criteria are well-defined and properly attended to.

None of the climate change analyses rise to that level, unfortunately. They are en par with polls or surveys despite what most people think.
pnewton said:
Comparing global warming to this poll is either disingenuous, or profoundly lacking in knowledge of general science
Click to expand...
You forgot “investigated for reliability” as an option. I can provide information on all the meta-analyses done on climate change if you are interested. Most people aren’t but are content to rely on the “science,” as if science is a faith-based endeavor.
 
No thanks. I do not debate climate change here. It is not even the topic.
 
pnewton said:
Comparing global warming to this poll is either disingenuous, or profoundly lacking in knowledge of general science.
Click to expand...
No, actually. The poll you are referring to from earlier in the thread…


is very much like the polls or surveys done by Cook, Oreskes, and others to “establish” consensus on climate change.

The only relevant difference was that the researchers “read into” or gleaned from the papers they surveyed what they (the researchers) determined were the “opinions” of the authors of those papers.

Ergo, the difference is that the Sermo survey went directly to the doctors, while the climate change surveys didn’t survey the scientists directly, they indirectly obtained the answers to their “survey” questions by gleaning those from papers rather than from the scientists.

That is the only relevant difference between the papers determining “consensus” in climate change and the surveys determining the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine.

So it is, in fact, disingenuous of you to state: “Comparing global warming to this poll is either disingenuous, or profoundly lacking in knowledge of general science.”

First off, I wasn’t comparing “climate change” as a science to “this poll.” I was comparing papers surveying climate scientists about climate change to this poll of doctors surveying doctors on the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine.

Second, I never claimed this poll attained the level of “peer review,” although I would say it functions as a “quick and dirty” guide to the possible effectiveness of a drug in the absence of peer review studies which would take months or years. Desperate times permit such shortcuts when many lives are at stake.
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
So is it disingenuous of you to state" “Comparing global warming to this poll is either disingenuous, or profoundly lacking in knowledge of general science.”
Click to expand...
No, because it was, and remains, my sincere opinion. I do not see the relevance. The time frame alone (decades versus weeks), formulates my opinion. I know environmental science can be political. This COVID treatment is unavoidably political by those that think Trump knows everything and is seldom wrong, and those who think he knows nothing and is seldom right.

Medical studies are done in the blind. Even this analysis would need, at minimum, to factor in the respondents political opinions if it were to be used as a quick and dirty medical poll.
 
pnewton said:
Medical studies are done in the blind. Even this analysis would need, at minimum, to factor in the respondents political opinions if it were to be used as a quick and dirty medical poll.
Click to expand...
That would assume professional doctors who are in the process of saving lives or watching people die would permit political opinions to colour their views on the efficacy of a particular drug.

I would think it more likely that you are permitting your views on the mendacity in politics to colour the way you are assessing the behaviour of doctors and the value of this poll.
 
Last edited:
Last week, the American Society of Thoracic Surgeons issued guidelines for doctors to use the anti-malarial if they are in the advanced stages of the coronavirus, but some physicians say that it needs to be administered long before that.

“In a pandemic, we need to be using presumptive diagnoses,” said Marvin Lerner, a retired Manhattan-based physician and infectious diseases expert.

A Rockland County physician said he recently successfully treated 350 patients showing early signs of the coronavirus using a combination of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and zinc sulfate in his office. Dr. Vladimir “Zev” Zelenko said the $20 treatment had “100 percent” success in his Monsey practice in a video message he posted to President Trump two weeks ago.

 
Folks, the president is… wait for this… the president. He’s is not the Messiah, the devil, the Pope or the Surgeon General. What he is, is a political leader. A leader. In that capacity, he preaches. When the entire world seems terrorized by an invisible enemy, the president is speaking hope to try to calm fears.

Some have a problem with that?

When the ship is sinking, anything that floats is a lifesaver. Researchers and line physicians around the world are throwing everything they can get their hands on against the Corona wall to see what sticks.

Hydroxychloroquine is one such drug, bearing in mind that no drug is 100% effective. Don’t ask me how I know that.

Where is the Christian joy that true progress is being made - for the first time in human history - against a never before seen plague?
 
Last edited:
po18guy said:
Where is the Christian joy that true progress is being made - for the first time in human history - against a never before seen plague?
Click to expand...
Thank you for that. It is a good point, and one I will take away from here.
 
You are very kind. Another side note: My formerly pathetic eyes were just repaired via cataract surgery and engineered interocular lenses. My vision now being better than when I was born, I like to look at the big picture.

Thus, if one thinks about it, the devil’s plan is being defeated, since:
“Through the envy of the devil, death entered the world”
  • Wisdom 2:24
Click to expand...
 
HarryStotle said:
I would think it more likely that you are permitting your views on the mendacity in politics to colour the way you are assessing the behaviour of doctors and the value of this poll.
Click to expand...
I won’t deny that possibility.
 
Last edited:
NOT to draw parallels, they accused Christ of having a demon. I would consider the politically motivated source of opposition, both then and now.

Again: Not drawing a parallel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top