Renowned epidemiologist sees 'massive disinformation campaign' against hydroxychloroquine

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle’s article criticizing the FrontLineDoctors . . .

Two of those appearing at the Monday event are ophthalmologists . . .

You understand that ophthalmologists are the ones (along with optometrists) who are on the team who examines people on hydroxychloroquine.

Right?

At least their retinas (so they have a LOT of experience being on the team following corona virus patients). Now admitedly corona virus patients are not on hydroxychloroquine for six-plus months, but the point is, these doctors have enormous amounts of experience with the drug hydroxychloroquine.

Anyone who gets CHRONIC hydroxychloroquine in America, or virtually anyone, sees the eye doctor after six months to a year, then yearly thereafter.

Right?

Your article’s title is inappropriate as the FrontLineDoctors did not universalize ALL of them being on the front lines in the sense of seeing corona virus patients.

Some of these guys are ER docs., so to pretend that they (in a universal sense) have not been on the front lines of corona virus is ridiculous.

By the way. Since you brought it up (via your article) . . . Since an ophthalmologist is implied to be disqualified from being authoritative (according to you via your own article), . . .

(Something I think even you don’t believe from your own actions)

. . . Show me ONE LINK where
you criticized at least one of the lead “researchers”
of the recent VA study
harpooning hydroxychloroquine (that naturally used wrong cohorts).

One link.

 

[Cathoholic]

Thbolt . . .

Sigh, I’ve already pointed out that South Korea walked away from HCQ . . .

No you didn’t.

You quoted an article where ivory tower guys made such recomendations.

Not an article that said the South Koreans have stopped using HQC.

Thbolt’s article . . . .

Two major general hospitals in Seoul – Asan Medical Center and Gangnam Severance Hospital – have recently ceased their clinical study . . . .

But I never asked for HOSPITAL studies.

Explain WHY via the physiology, that this is irrelevant.

The other thing is, American physicians admit cardiac issues are much more problematic with chloroquine (than with hydroxychloroquine).

So WHY quote an article that focuses on chloroquine?

How many people have cardiac problems with a week of hydroxychloroquine Thbolt?

A cardiologist interviewed on Laura Ingraham’s show has said in his whole career, he has NEVER SEEN ONE (patient who had cardiac complications from short term hydroxychloroquine therapy).

Your rebuttal shows nothing.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

these doctors have enormous amounts of experience with the drug hydroxychloroquine.

What they don’t have is credibility, as the references I cited show. It is a black eye for doctors in general that such people go around pretending to give out reliable medical advice. No reputable doctor would take them seriously. Frankly, it is hurting your HCQ advocacy to link up with them. You have a much better case by citing the doctors that objectively report the weak but positive effects they have noticed, but also warn about the limitations of their findings. When you shoot for the moon with this group and miss, you fall really really hard.

 

[Cathoholic]

To the readers here.

Look at LeafByNiggle’s last post (here).

It is a black eye for doctors in general that such people go around pretending to give out reliable medical advice.

Do you think Leaf is talking about . . . .

A. Ivory Tower guys who no longer see patients?

B. “Researchers” who FAKE research?

C. NEJM and The Lancet “peers” that get FAKE research blown past them?

D. Physicians that actually see patients and USE hydroxychloroquine in corona virus infections.

WHO do you think Leaf is criticizing among the A-D choices above?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Look at LeafByNiggle’s last post.

It is a black eye for doctors in general that such people go around pretending to give out reliable medical advice.

You don’t have to guess. If it isn’t clear I’ll tell you. I was referring to the image of all doctors in the public’s mind. From their point of view, when one group of doctors speaks ill of another groups of doctors and the second group speaks ill of the first group, the public will get the idea that no doctor knows what he is talking about and you can’t trust any of them. That is very bad for public trust.

 

[Cathoholic]

Well link me to just one of your explicit criticisms of the NEJM and The Lancet fiascos?

Your actions just don’t say that Leaf. At least to me.

 

[Motherwit]

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.

The original interview claims 53 studies that prove it, but my main suspicion stems from the fact that none are cited or linked to. We are expected to just accept these claims without any proof and that is bad, bad science.

 

[Cathoholic]

Thbolt . . .

They aren’t using HCQ anymore

I think you’re wrong and I also think you have provided no evidence that you are correct.

This is mere ipse dixit from you about South Korea not using hydroxychloroquine.

They (South Korea) at least were one of the biggest users of hydroxychloroquine.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

You have provided no evidence that South Korea has stopped using hydroxychloroquine (why should they when they have had such great results with it?).

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Ivory Tower guys have recommended stopping HCQ usage in America too.

Big deal.

Yet people are still being treated with hydroxychloroquine in America also.

 

[Cathoholic]

You are the one who has provided no evidence except your own ipse dixit.

If they were not at least using these drugs WHY would you quote an article recomending STOPPING using chloroquine.

By the way. I have seen hydroxychloroquine advocates (yes physicians) who ALSO recomend not using chloroquine due to its cardiac side effects.

So what do they recomend as an alternative treatment?

HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE (that has even LESS cardiac side effects).

You took my point about hydroxychloroquine and implimented the fallacy of equivocation CHANGING the premise to chloroquine and thought it would go unnoticed.

But it didn’t.

 

[Cathoholic]

Thbolt . . . .

South Korean officials no longer recommend using HCQ . . .

To the readers here.

Re-read the last several posts and draw your own self-evident conclusions.

 

[Cathoholic]

Thbolt . . .

they do and falsely claiming the HCQ is the reason why South Korea has such a low infection rate.

That is false too.

It MAY be.

Your article says nothing about hydroxychloroquine.
It talks about chloroquine.

They have different side-effect profiles.

They are in the same class of drugs, but they are not the same drug.

 

[Cathoholic]

Thbolt . . . .

HCQ has nothing to do with the low infection rate in South Korea and to claim otherwise is a lie.

I just got done NOT claiming that.

Here it is again.

The “lie” is not coming from me Thbolt.

 

[Cathoholic]

Thbolt . . .

I said that anyone that says that South Korea has a low COVID infection rate is propagating a lie.

Nobody here has talked about North Korea’s “infection rate” either.

What HAS been talked about is South Korea’s low death rate.

And their death rate IS low. Among the lowest in the world.

 

[Cathoholic]

Thbolt . . .

it has nothing to use with HCQ

To that I would say two things.

1. You don’t know that.
2. The left seems to be doing everything it can nationally to keep it that way (to keep people from finding out the answers to such questions in the face of undisputed anectodal success of many physicians).

 

[Cathoholic]

Ipse dixit from you here Thbolt.

Nah, HCQ just doesn’t seem to work.

The answer to the issue is not to shrug it off.

The answer is to study it scientifically.

 

[Cathoholic]

Thbolt missing the point . . .

How close are they to the original source?

There is NO “original source” Thbolt.

At least of double-blinded, randomized, prospective studies of hydroxycloroquine use in the proper cohorts.

THAT’S part of the point!

And the left nationally is doing everything it can to keep it that way!

The anectodal reports are available. I personally have put up several of them here at CAF. Others have too.

The left blows it off saying it is anectdotal (but doing everything it can to hinder bringing those studies to the next level,
banning people who talk about it on social media,
and shadow-banning physicians who attempt to talk about their personal successes with corona virus patients,
and cutting off websites of doctors who actually take care of these COVID-19 patients).

 

[Cathoholic]

There are no false claims here Thbolt. At least by me.

 

[Motherwit]

By the way. I have seen hydroxychloroquine advocates (yes physicians) who ALSO recomend not using chloroquine due to its cardiac side effects.

So what do they recomend as an alternative treatment?

South Korea is using remdesivir. In the last weeks, France, South Korea and Africa are among countries who’ve had to again correct the misleading claims regarding the use of HCQ and chloroquine by their countries.

South Korea using hydroxychloroquine? 20 August, 2020

The Facebook post also claims that South Korea started using hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients in February 2020.

This is false. South Korea has never approved hydroxychloroquine nor its sister drug chloroquine for coronavirus treatment and halted trials after concerns about associated risks.

South Korean news agency Yonhap reported that the country has, instead, recommended the use of remdesivir against the viral disease.

“The Central Clinical Commission, a government-organized task force of doctors and other medical experts, officially advised the use of remdesivir, an Ebola drug developed by U.S. pharmaceutical giant Gilead Sciences Inc., for coronavirus treatment,” the report reads.

“But the commission decided not to recommend the use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, medications used to prevent and treat malaria, while advising that the use of kaletra, a medication for the treatment and prevention of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), should be cautiously decided.”

 

[Cathoholic]

Motherwit . . . .

South Korea is using remdesivir.

So what?

America is using remdesivir also.

But you can’t conclude from that that Soth Korea and America are NOT using hydroxychloroquine.

What kind of logic is that??

South Korea has never approved hydroxychloroquine

Do you understand they can use drugs that are not necessarily “approved”?

It is called off-label usage and occurs commonly in America at least.

 

[Motherwit]

The Central Clinical Commission, a government-organized task force of doctors and other medical experts, officially advised the use of remdesivir , an Ebola drug developed by U.S. pharmaceutical giant Gilead Sciences Inc., for coronavirus treatment,” the report reads.

“ But the commission decided not to recommend the use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine,

The Central Clinical Commission, a government-organized task force of doctors and other medical experts, officially advised the use of remdesivir , an Ebola drug developed by U.S. pharmaceutical giant Gilead Sciences Inc., for coronavirus treatment,” the report reads.

“ But the commission decided not to recommend the use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine,