Renowned epidemiologist sees 'massive disinformation campaign' against hydroxychloroquine

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle . . .

But all the sources that have been cited here only cite prophylactic use.

What are you talking about?

I just cited three citations of yours via you link, regarding hospitalized cohorts.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I dismiss all their so-called evidence because they are not reliable sources.

It is not just me:

No Evidence That Doctor Group in Viral Video Got Near COVID 'Front Lines'

Who are the physicians behind America's Frontline Doctors?

www.medpagetoday.com

Let's Amplify the Real Front-line Physicians

In this In the Trenches blog post, AAFP Senior Vice President of Advocacy, Practice Advancement and Policy Stephanie Quinn pushes back against misinformation about the pandemic -- and spotlights members who are doing the same on the ground.

www.aafp.org

Take it from a physician treating COVID-19 patients, 'Frontline Doctors' video is dangerous

I'm a real front-line physician in the coronavirus crisis. The viral 'America's Frontline Doctors' video is fake news that sows mistrust.

www.usatoday.com

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/28/tech/facebook-youtube-coronavirus/index.html

Who Are 'America's Frontline Doctors' and Dr. Stella Immanuel?

Thousands of readers inquired about people featured in a viral video pulled by social media companies for pushing COVID-19 misinformation in July 2020.

www.snopes.com

https://losangeleno.com/coronavirus-los-angeles/americas-frontline-doctors/

Dark money and PAC's coordinated 'reopen' push are behind doctors' viral hydroxychloroquine video

The virality of the video underscores the difficulty in moderating coronavirus misinformation as treatments and public health responses have become more political.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Cathoholic]

To the readers here.

I asked RidgeSorinter to provide the physiologic mechanism behind his criticisms of plasma and hydroxychloroquine.

(Since I know at least the common items regarding the physiology, I knew he couldn’t do it without violating the science).

RidgeSprinters response?

Refer instead to politics, specifically . . . (don’t anyone be surprised here) . . . “Trump”.

Just what you’d expect.

Which public? Trump’s Core?

FAKE, because they go against your narrative or Trump’s narrative?

Bold mine.

It is things like this, that I ask you readers to realize the left substitutes science with politics nationally.

Readers here sometimes pick up on this and parrot these points. The above may well be such an example.

The national rebuttals picked up by others are much more a reflection of national leftist politics. Not their science.

 

[RidgeSprinter]

To the readers here.

You tend to use that phrase a lot to render personal attacks.

I asked RidgeSorinter to provide the physiologic mechanism behind his criticisms of plasma and hydroxychloroquine.

I am not a doctor. Do you proclaim to be one? If so please provide evidence that has not been refuted by medical professionals around the world.

(Since I know at least the common items regarding the physiology, I knew he couldn’t do it without violating the science).

Claiming to know I lot?

It is things like this, that I ask you readers to realize the left substitutes science with politics nationally.

The OP substitutes science with politics. Similar OP narratives is that Trump must be right, so people will scour the internet for any source that will prove him right even when there are ample sources that show him to be dead wrong.

The national rebuttals picked up by others are much more a reflection of national leftist politics. Not their science.

And the same can be said of the national rightist politics. Not their science if it contradicts their narrative of Trump must be right.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

It can be implied that Leaf still professes a total disbelief in the corrupting effect of money on Big Pharma and its influence on the CDC and the NIH via the foundations for both as well as its influence on Congress. Several months ago, I documented the corporate partners for these two foundations along with the size of their contributions for one of them as that was part of what was publicly available at that time.

It is not for nothing that Big Pharma are the biggest lobbyists in Congress if one goes on monetary contributions. But somehow Leaf does not believe there is a single quid pro quo for that. A belief Leaf extends to the foundations for the CDC and the NIH.

Leaf’s response at that time: mere coincidence. In other words, Leaf believes that Big Pharma has no corrupting effect on anything ever and that includes Congress.

 

[Motherwit]

Ridgerunner . . .

Apparently he won his lawsuit against the purveyors of the last previous slander. Perhaps he will again.

I remember the anthrax mailing murders from 2001 but no details of who were the suspects. Those sort of things weren’t revealed in the news 20 years ago. The only reason I searched for Steven Hatfills credentials was because the quote of his that was used in the interview stated 53 studies supported HCQ but while he quoted from the studies that didn’t there was no reference to a single of those 53 positive studies. That raised my suspicions. Looking at the doctors history, I’m surprised that anyone would use him as a reference. He seems to be a vexatious litigant and that’s how his critics get silenced.

 

[Motherwit]

To the extent it is useful, it is prophylactic or administered within a day or two of exposure. Some data indicate a high degree of usefulness in those circumstances.

That is the concerning claim. That means that basically everyone should be taking it in a rolling continuance because knowing the actual date of exposure is only established by backtracking from the first symptoms two weeks later. It isn’t a harmless drug and the evidence that everyone should be taking it ‘in case’ isn’t safe science.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It would be much easier to accept all the nay-saying if I didn’t know it’s part of the attack on Trump. It’s a little reminiscent of MSM commentary in which they all use the same catch-phrase or word as if they had all gotten together and rehearsed it. When various sources say over and over that it is dangerous to people when the physicians who have prescribed it for years say it isn’t, then I am inclined to discount everything else the person says.

It’s too bad really that there is this political pressure from the left to “make Trump wrong” in this. Medical people and organizations aren’t immune from pressure, especially when the media is driving it and potentially threatening reputations.

safe science.

When one sees the “lawyer ads” on TV encouraging one to join in class action lawsuits against this pharmaceutical firm or another or this prosthetic device or another, it’s tough to believe there really is anything deserving the term “safe science”. All of those things were FDA approved. All of them.

To swoon over HCQ alone in the Covid discussion, when there are zero “lawyer ads” on it after many decades of use, seems politically driven to me.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle . . .

Where is the data on early treatment of infected people?

I have told you over and over again (but it never matters).

Here it is again . . . .

When they present their reasearch, they get told or implied it is worthless because theirs was anectodal.

(You yourself have made this charge when I have posted it. But I have also pointed out that is the best anybody can do in the earliest stages of a NEW virus.)

The studies that are needful are not being performed.

And here that is again . . .

Were the studies designed that way (to fail)? Probably not. But why are there no studies being talked about that are choosing proper cohorts except people like the FrontLineDoctors who at least have their anecdotal experience

And if you want I could waste my time and show you where I have asked for such blinded, randomized, controlled, studies.

Real studies. Not the ones like the phony global warming games but real scientific studies that can readily be reproduced and verified by the scientific community any where in the world (and not hide behind “proprietary” methods while pretending it is real science.)

And I am still waiting for . . .

Link to me all these doctors treating patients with hydroxychloroquine on a daily basis that quit because it did not work.

But we both know I will be waiting a loooong time for that one .

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It can be implied that Leaf still professes a total disbelief in the corrupting effect of money on Big Pharma and its influence on the CDC and the NIH…

It’s not that I don’t believe in the theoretical possibility of illegal corruption of these organizations. It’s that there is no evidence of actual corruption. All you have is a conspiracy theory.

It would be much easier to accept all the nay-saying if I didn’t know it’s part of the attack on Trump.

It is only an attack on falsehoods. If it just so happens that Trump embraces those falsehoods, then that is his choice. The only politicization of hydroxychloroquine has been on the part of Trump.

 

[Cathoholic]

Motherwit . . .

The only reason I searched for Steven Hatfills credentials was because the quote of his that was used in the interview stated 53 studies supported HCQ but while he quoted from the studies that didn’t there was no reference to a single of those 53 positive studies. That raised my suspicions.

Then you neglected to be complete and tell me he was exonerated of suspicions.

And I asked if your research was inaacurate via being incomplete or if you witheld that information on purpose?

 

[Ridgerunner]

It is only an attack on falsehoods. If it just so happens that Trump embraces those falsehoods, then that is his choice.

When the left says everything Trump says is a lie, this seems to just be one more false allegation aimed solely at attacking Trump. It isn’t as if others spoke highly of HCQ, and at a time when nobody seemed to have any idea what to do about Covid. Actually, while there is some improvement in the knowledge of it, there is no clearly effective treatment other than supportive care.

Trump didn’t politicize it. I recall that there were those, including medical people, who tentatively attributed preventive properties to it before Trump did. He didn’t just invent that. But the real attacks on it came only after Trump spoke highly of it.

Was Trump overly optimistic about it? I think one could say that. But he sure wasn’t the only one, including doctors. But to say he uttered “falsehoods” about it is just about all anyone needs to know in order to be persuaded that the attacks on HCQ are actually political attacks against Trump.

And that’s a shame, because it may well have preventive or early infection benefits. But because of the politicization, it has become politically incorrect to say anything favorable about it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Trump didn’t politicize it.

You know, upon further reflection, I think you are right. Maybe at first Trump overstated the known value of HCQ, but after a while, even he stopped talking about. However his supporters did not. They continued beating the drum for HCQ, sometimes going beyond even what Trump had said, apparently in an effort to make their guy look good. Now we have a situation where, no matter what the medical findings are, the “hidden” benefits of HCQ against covid-19 will go down in the annals of urban mythology, long after covid has passed, right along side Area 51.

 

[Cathoholic]

RidgeRunner . . . .

It isn’t as if others spoke highly of HCQ, and at a time when nobody seemed to have any idea what to do about Covid.

That’s exactly right.

And now that international ivory tower-types are disavowing it based on nothing (i.e. the WHO suspended hcq studies based upon the phony Lancet and NEJM “Research” articles but thankfully resumed them now that we know FAKE science got past the editors and publishers (how did such a thing happen in the first place?) and irrelevant hospital-patient studies, there are still front line people (who actually take care of covid patients) who continue to tell us it works. Both in the US and abroad.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

there are still front line people (who actually take care of covid patients) who continue to tell us it works.

Note to readers: This has been asserted many times, but no statistics have been cited - only a very few doctors with questionable trustworthyness.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle . . . .

However his supporters did not. They continued beating the drum for HCQ . . .

That is irrelevant.

The issue would be if they did that for political or scientific reasons (or both).

To the readers here.

Go back and search Hydroxychloroquine + Cathoholic.

Look at how I continue to appeal to the science.
Look at how I appeal to the basic science too.

See if you see ANY posts from me saying anything like . . . .

Well Trump says it’s OK so we gotta stand by him and do it!

(Or some such.)

You will see NONE of the politics angle from me other than possibly
Trump even knows the basic science that we must not wait until a person has a deep-seeded infection, then treat according to the PHYSIOLOGY (no recomendations from me personally here again).

Check it out.

You will see no politicizing HCQ from me.

Now to you readers.

Then go back and read or re-read some of the attackers of HCQ.

See where their appeals go to when they run out of their shallow “scientific” arguments that (must) ignore some very basic aspects.

See if they sooner or later go to their usual game.
See if they sooner or later start to appeal to the usual . . . “Trump” angle.

Even the media (often in their TITLES! of articles) go to “Trump”.

You’ll see it if you start looking for it.

You can see it on this thread even too.

Ask yourself who is REALLY politicizing HCQ in the threads?
And who is trying to look at the science?

Far from the Trump supporters politicizing HCQ,
it is the Trump opposers that continualy appeal to politics in this realm.
(Which is part of WHY you see FAKE studies from even journals such as The Lancet and the NEJM opposing HCQ disquised as “science”!!)

 

[Ridgerunner]

I do think Trump supporters might at times express more optimism for HCQ than it might deserve, though there have been enough supporters of it to persuade at least some that it’s highly beneficial. But it really is true that the real attacks began only after Trump praised its value, and as I recall, some physicians touted it even after the attacks on Trump started. But the defense slowly quieted down after the attacks began getting institutional support.

Again, I think it’s a shame. HCQ might be valuable. It sure does not seem “dangerous” as many have argued that it is on virtually no evidence. The whole thing does go to show how politics can deprive the public of anything or impose something on the public, divorced from the merits of the thing in question.

 

[Motherwit]

Ask yourself who is REALLY politicizing HCQ in the threads?
And who is trying to look at the science?

Science by nature is globally referential and the studies around the world have overall debunked the value of HCQ through clinical trials. The anomaly now is in pro Trump devotee’s obsession with continuing to promote it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

studies around the world have overall debunked the value of HCQ through clinical trials

Possibly you will provide some studies showing that it has no value as preventive or early-onset treatment. But everything I have seen cited, here as elsewhere, is always about hospital studies. Personally, I don’t recall anybody claiming it was useful for people who are in bad enough condition to be hospitalized.

I realize it’s tough to prove something is a preventive, or that it isn’t one. It’s tough to prove, with something like Covid, that something is useful in very early treatment but not later. It’s tough to prove a negative, especially with something as uncertain and still mysterious as Covid.

It’s not a matter of being a pro Trump devotee, though it is irritating to see him attacked for absolutely everything he does. The much more irritating aspect of it is to see something that reputable people say has benefits virtually banned simply because Trump spoke well of it. There are undoubtedly doctors who would still prescribe it because they think it can be of value, but won’t do it because of the fear of negative career consequences.

 

[Cathoholic]

Motherwit . . . .

Science by nature is globally referential and the studies around the world have overall debunked the value of HCQ through clinical trials.

That’s the point. They have NOT done ANY such thing. You know that.

I have explained WHY . . . NOT ONE of your references has been persuasive against HCQ usage in the correct cohorts.

I have asked you about the basic science but you refuse to answer regarding that.

But if you did, you would delineate for yourself why your own arguments fall short.

And then you go back to the political dimension
(that the HCQ people keep ignoring in favor of the science) . . .

The anomaly now is in pro Trump devotee’s obsession with continuing to promote it.

How about an obsession for truth? Have you ever thought THAT might motivate someone?