Hydroxychloroquine Still Doesn’t Do Anything, New Data Shows

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: TheRedneck

OP and hopenotfeariswhatweneed say no proof.........hmmmm

G uess they dont care about this

Or this

O r this

MMhmmmm

Weird

.......I could do this all night .......

Can you explain to me then why doctors all around the world aren't collectively cheering that this virus is no longer a threat because of HCQ ?

1. Probably because your selective reception of info thats out there.....
2. because the media doesnt report it

Weird

Cough......

Yawn


Again i could keep doing this all day........but we both know you and the OP only want your echo chamber.....talking heads for what your spoonfed without the slightest urge to actually do any research......your hate for the President, takes precedence......over reality

Yall would rather people be sick and possibly die, over the president to have been even partially right over a treatment that could save lives......and thats freaking reprehensible.......

You are living in la la land.

This has nothing to do with trump, can you answer the question or not?

I did , multiple times......

My sincerest apologies if your reading comprehension has put you at a disadvantage to comprehend the many links and information I have provided you........

Alas, thats a you thing and not a me thing.......

Oh so virus is cured then good to know

a reply to: TheRedneck

A search for understanding. In this case randomized, blinded and controlled experiments can provide an understanding of the efficacy of a treatment. Does it do anything at all in comparison to doing nothing.

Hmm I wonder if the same metric was applied to the new "vaccines" that are soon to be flooding the market , promoted as the wonder drug to fix this whole situation.........

Im sure theyve had the several years to measure long term effects etc.......

Naaa.......im sure its fine......

Hydroxychloroquine which has been used for over 40 years and zinc are the devil.......dangerous.......

These new vaccines tho, developed over the last 6 months to a year (MAYBE).......totally fine.....but i guess no one wants to bring that up

(just a side note)

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: TheRedneck

OP and hopenotfeariswhatweneed say no proof.........hmmmm

G uess they dont care about this

Or this

O r this

MMhmmmm

Weird

.......I could do this all night .......

Can you explain to me then why doctors all around the world aren't collectively cheering that this virus is no longer a threat because of HCQ ?

1. Probably because your selective reception of info thats out there.....
2. because the media doesnt report it

Weird

Cough......

Yawn


Again i could keep doing this all day........but we both know you and the OP only want your echo chamber.....talking heads for what your spoonfed without the slightest urge to actually do any research......your hate for the President, takes precedence......over reality

Yall would rather people be sick and possibly die, over the president to have been even partially right over a treatment that could save lives......and thats freaking reprehensible.......

You are living in la la land.

This has nothing to do with trump, can you answer the question or not?

I did , multiple times......

My sincerest apologies if your reading comprehension has put you at a disadvantage to comprehend the many links and information I have provided you........

Alas, thats a you thing and not a me thing.......

Oh so virus is cured then good to know

That wasnt the claim........but then again, you know that......keep up the good work

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I would include "under a physician's care" rather than "in a hospital setting." Many operations are now carried out in a doctor's office instead of a hospital. I see no reason medical treatment for non-life-threatening conditions, at least for those which are not life-threatening yet, cannot be included.

I do NOT recommend taking ANY medication either without a physician's knowledge and approval or in dosages not specified by a physician.

TheRedneck

Exactly , I didnt think i needed to state that, but perhaps this day in age I do......if for no other reason than to keep people from sliding off into a totally different direction

Thank you for the correction indeed

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

It's only a failed experiment because no aether was found, but yes it did successfully achieve it's goal, well unless aether is there and we simply haven't figured out how to see it yet.

Not only do I agree, but I agree more with your statement than I did mine! If the aether does exist as per the theory and the Michelson-Morley Experiment failed to find it, yes, in that case the experiment was a failure.

See? No "gotchas." I just want to get us all back into science.

So it seems we agree that experiments are successful as long as they give accurate results, whether they prove a theory or disprove a theory, correct?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Now, another simple (or should be simple) question: how do we achieve understanding in science?

It's an ongoing process. One which involves observation, critical thinking, and when possible, experimentation.

It's difficult to experiment with black holes, but with disease treatments not so much. But it does require randomization, blinding, and controls to determine whether the treatment actually has any effect at all. There are a lot of variables involved, after all.

a reply to: TheRedneck

If the aether does exist as per the theory and the Michelson-Morley Experiment failed to find it, yes, in that case the experiment was a failure.

You can't prove unicorns don't exist. All you have to do is find one.

Do you discount the use of the null hypothesis in science?

a reply to: TheRedneck

So it seems we agree that experiments are successful as long as they give accurate results, whether they prove a theory or disprove a theory, correct?

Sure, I'm not sure that applies to medical science though, as the patients need to recover for there be success, if only a few are showing benefits from the treatment it's only partially successful.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Actually, just for purposes of precision, hydroxychloroquine was developed in 1945 and has been in use for 75 years. Remdesivir was developed around 2012, so it's been around for 8 years. It's interesting to note that Gilead Pharmaceutical (the pharmaceutical which developed Remdesivir) reports that Remdesivir is still not approved for use against any disease by any country. Link

TheRedneck

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

if only a few are showing benefits from the treatment it's only partially successful.

The majority of patients recover. Treatment or not.
Without real studies, it's not possible to determine what led to any outcome.

a reply to: Phage

It's an ongoing process. One which involves observation, critical thinking, and when possible, experimentation.

Yes, that is a good statement. In general, randomized, double-blind studies are preferable, but not always practical. Still, we get as close as we can within the limits of practicality.

Are there any restrictions on what should be observed? As in, if something is hard to observe directly, what are the scientific rules concerning how to observe it indirectly?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

In general, randomized, double-blind studies are preferable, but not always practical.

They are occurring, in this case.

Are there any restrictions on what should be observed? As in, if something is hard to observe directly, what are the scientific rules concerning how to observe it indirectly?

What?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

if only a few are showing benefits from the treatment it's only partially successful.

The majority of patients recover. Treatment or not.
Without real studies, it's not possible to determine what led to any outcome.

Yes I should have added if in fact has any affect at all to the outcome.

a reply to: Phage

You can't prove unicorns don't exist. All you have to do is find one.

I will somewhat agree with that. In order to prove unicorns do not exist, one must devise an experiment that ensures as one of its parameters that no unicorn can exist without being detected. That is notoriously difficult to do and has led to the statement that one "cannot prove a negative." In truth, it is possible, but usually completely impractical.

In such a scenario, a specific area where unicorns might exist could be tested, if there were a way to ensure that no unicorn in that area could escape detection. That still wouldn't answer the question "do unicorns exist"... it could answer the question "do unicorns exist within this area."

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Unicorns are magical. They can exist, or not. At their discretion.

a reply to: Phage

OK, let me rephrase using something you are familiar with.

Let's say I wanted to prove a theory that hang gliders are more efficient over certain weather conditions... for sake of argument (and remember I am not a pilot; this is all hypothetical) let's say during sunny days when the temperature is over 80 degrees. I want to experiment to see if my theory is correct. Are there any restrictions on what kind of hang gliders I should use in my experiment?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phage

Unicorns are magical.

Then it would be quite difficult to devise a way they could not evade detection.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes.
Science doesn't deal with things like magic and faith.

a reply to: Phage

Science doesn't deal with things like magic and faith.

I agree. I just want to point out why: things like magic and faith cannot be accurately measured or reliably observed. To detect/quantify them would require unknown parameters in any experiment. One cannot design the unknown.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Right.
But the efficacy of a treatment is quite subject to determination by randomized, blinded, and controlled studies. Blinding is important because, well, you know why.