Hydroxychloroquine Still Doesn’t Do Anything, New Data Shows

a reply to: Southern Guardian

I can't prove your claim for you.

It's not my point I want you to prove. It's yours.

Talking heads right? Like the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases? Like the National Institutes of Health?

Yeah, like the reports I gave from that same NIH that you ignored... and still try to ignore. If I remember correctly (and I do; your post is still there), you even asked why you should bother reading those reports since you depended on others to tell you about them.

Same NIH... but when someone tells you they say something you want to be true, you blindly believe it and carry on for 15 pages accusing others of not understanding the thing you admit to not being able to read... when someone else tells you they say something you don't agree with, you then try to claim they don't understand the reports you cannot even read.

Son, you have got it bad!

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

It's not my point

The point that HCQ in combination with Zinc should be given some serious consideration as treatment against COVID19? That is your point. Where's the evidence?

Yeah, like the reports I gave from that same NIH that you ignored

The ones you make your own intepretations of because, you know, you're a scientist right? You said so yourself, right here on this internet conspiracy board. And then you insist to disregard the actualy qualified person(s) and bodies out there, in relevant positions, clearly saying another because well... ah, you just don't like them.

I'm happy to repeat this to you time and time again.

you blindly believe it and carry on for 15 pages accusing others

I'm glad I'm worth 15 pages Redneck. It's telling how invested you are. Carry on. This is my thread.

a reply to: Phage

It's very effective for the treatment of Lupus. Lots of people depend upon it for that.

What? No! That can't be true! Hydroxychloroquine was developed during WWII for treatment of malaria, not Lupus! How can one medicine treat two different things? That's impossible, right?

Actually, it is possible... hydroxychloroqiune was developed for treatment of malaria (we can even go back a little earlier; it was developed as a substitute for chloroquine that was safer, chloroquine being a derivation from quinine that was used in folklore treatment of malaria for centuries before that). It wasn't approved for use in Lupus until 1956, but it is quite effective. It is also effective in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, another use for the same medicine.

it works, again for the umpteenth time, by increasing the zinc uptake in cells. Zinc levels have been implicated in weakened immunity, Lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis. Therefore, hydroxychloroquine may prove effective in any disease where natural immunity needs to be strengthened or where cellular zinc levels need stabilization. That includes natural immunity responses against... wait for it... viruses! Like malaria...

Prior to 1956, one could have made the exact same argument against using hydroxychloroquine for Lupus that is being made today over using it for SARS-2. I guess it's a good thing we didn't or there would be a lot less help for Lupus sufferers today.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Southern Guardian

The point that HCQ in combination with Zinc should be given some serious consideration as treatment against COVID19? That is your point. Where's the evidence?

Posted a couple pages back... you know, the NIH reports you couldn't read. I am asking you to now prove the full treatment is not effective.

You proved that hydroxychloroquine alone is not effective for terminal patients. Why can't you prove the full treatment isn't effective?

The ones you make your own intepretations of because, you know, you're a scientist right? You said so yourself, right here on this internet conspiracy board. And then you insist to disregard the actualy qualified person(s) and bodies out there, in relevant positions, clearly saying another because well... ah, you just don't like them.

Yes, I deal in science every day. Yes, I can read and understand the reports (not my field, but I can understand them). No, I have not disregarded anyone (except you). What I have said, and what I will continue to say, is that the trials you keep referencing do not mirror the treatments that have been reported to be successful. You are trying to claim B isn't true because you proved Y is false.

I really don't know any of these scientists who have been mentioned; don't recognize any names... yet. Maybe if someone posts a report from UAB. I know a few people who went there for medical research. Mostly cancer, though.

You, on the other hand, just dismissed 10 different scientists published in the NIH, because you don't like what they said.

I'm glad I'm worth 15 pages Redneck. It's telling how invested you are.

I'm invested in trying to keep people from getting all dead.

I have a good idea what you are invested in, and it's not the same thing.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Posted a couple pages back... you know, the NIH reports you couldn't read.

You been peer reviewed papers? scientific findings? Interpretations of data? No, I don't present to fully comprehend and understand their findings. Hence I rely on qualified bodies, individuals in relevnt positions. You however pretend you can, and continue to dismiss the analysis of those in those relevant positions because.... well... you're an internet scientist on, once again, a conspiracy forum.

Your own personal views on here (clearly slanted) are irrelevant to the greater debate out there. The debate that matters to lives and entire communities. That's the clear fact here. It cares not of your biases.

Yes, I deal in science every day. Yes, I can read and understand the reports (not my field

So you don't actually claim to be a qualified scientist or physician?

a reply to: TheRedneck

That includes natural immunity responses against... wait for it... viruses! Like malaria...

Malaria is a parasitic disease. Not a caused by a virus, Doctor Redneck.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

You been peer reviewed papers? scientific findings? Interpretations of data?

Yes.

I wouldn't worry your little head about it, though... you couldn't read any of it.

So you don't actually claim to be a qualified scientist or physician?

Physician, no. Truth be told, I hate medical... too many terms to memorize, not enough conceptual comprehension of malfunctions. I attribute that to a lack of basic understanding of the inherent life processes within individual cells, but they're still working on that; it's hard to run intrusive experiments on living humans... all that human rights stuff, you know. Scientist, yes. Do you believe physics is different from one discipline to another?

I am a retired electrical research engineer. Prior to retirement, I took scientific theories and designed experimental apparatii to test them, as well as developed practical applications for physical discoveries. I worked closely, as in elbow-to-elbow, with physicists, other engineers, doctors, medical researchers, etc., on their level. One of my gigs was developing an I2C communication recording mechanism for analyzing neural data from Parkinson's patients. As a part of that, I had to actually take the measurements and analyze them manually to ensure my project was analyzing the data accurately. I also worked with a team of NASA physicists developing an apparatus to be used to identify cosmic rays from a balloon platform, utilizing silicon-based avalanche sensors to detect photon counts as low as 1000/sec.

Now, since I am retired, I spend much of my time developing new theories on magnetic phenomena and testing them, including high-frequency magnetic waves. I have my own little lab here that I can use to design/prototype/test any device I need to run experiments. And I goof off a lot on the Internet.

You can't even read the papers.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phage

Malaria is a parasitic disease.

I stand corrected.

Somehow I thought it was viral... wonder where I got that notion? Oh,well, doesn't matter. You are correct.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Physician, no. Truth be told, I hate medical...

I am a retired electrical research engineer.

Thank you. Moving along now.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

And what exactly are your qualifications?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Southern Guardian

try the guy here

Or try this one


This study provides the first in vivo evidence that zinc sulfate in combination with hydroxychloroquine may play a role in therapeutic management for COVID-19.

Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin plus zinc



What sort of study do you want?
They have shown that it would be unethical to carry out a double blind test because it requires people to die without trying a possible treatment.

Will you apply the same stringent test requirements for vaccine, treatment? Or only if Trump says seems like it will be good?


Perhaps you when you get it you can insist on not getting hcq+Zinc.
The we can see if you live or die compared to us that will take HCQ+Zinc.

But really if you get it don't shun something that can save you because of your TDS.

On the treatment of Covid-19

As Redneck asked you do you have any evidence the use of a zinc ionophore and zinc doesn't work?

a reply to: puzzled2

this is a retrospective observational study and therefor not a clinical trial

No controls. No analysis of confounding factors. Impossible to determine what effect, if any, the treatment had.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: puzzled2

this is a retrospective observational study and therefor not a clinical trial

They have shown that it would be unethical to carry out a double blind test because it requires people to die without trying a possible treatment.

False. Controls involving placebos for unproven treatments are not unethical. Or let's just pump all cancer patients with baking soda and vitamin C.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Somehow I thought it was viral... wonder where I got that notion?

Perhaps from the same medical training from which you derive your analysis of how zinc and hydroxychloroquine may (or may not function) in the treatment of viral infections.

a reply to: Phage

You know, Phage, snark doesn't become you. i made a mistake and admitted it. What do you want, blood?

Exactly how much medical training have you had?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Exactly how much medical training have you had?

First responder, lifeguard type stuff.
But then, I don't make authoritative claims about medical theory while at the same time demonstrating ignorance of basics.

There's a lot of "medical advice" given on ATS. The majority being nonsense. At best harmless, but some for the worse.

a reply to: TheRedneck



Stick my ass in here one more time just to say:

I been follow'n you three on this thread and I
now have to admit I was wrong to call this a loser thread.
For that I apologize.

The exchanges between you three have helped me have
much clearer picture of what's go'n on. And as of now I won't
be as zealous as have been in my views. Not so cut and dry as
I previously thought. So thanks to you Redneck Phage and
Southern Guardian. All three really sharp gentlemen.

a reply to: Phage

Exactly what medical advice have I given Phage? I have shown medical reports that show that zinc acts as a general antiviral and that hydroxychloroquine tends to cause an uptake of zinc in cells. I also have pointed out that several actual front line doctors have reported success with a treatment plan that includes hydroxychloroquine and that the trials which started this thread are not germane to this treatment since they do not comply with the parameters of the treatment.

I have also stated several times that hydroxychloroquine is a prescription medication that should only be taken under a doctor's advice. I would have a serious issue with making it OTC, since it is contra-indicated in some situations and can be dangerous under those situations.

None of that is in any serious dispute. What is in dispute in this thread is the claim that these trials are somehow applicable to something completely different. It's all based on known science that anyone who can read can verify in multiple places, not just online, but also in any general science textbook.

On the other hand, some posters, including yourself, have made statements indicating that newly released clinical trials are the final word on treatments they did not even test. That is giving medical advice on an issue under dispute. The choice of whether or not to use hydroxychloroquine is a decision best left to a medical doctor and their patient.

First responder, lifeguard type stuff.

Well, the next time I need first aid I'll make sure to call on you. I prefer to stick with established medical protocol for anything else.

But then, I don't make authoritative claims about medical theory while at the same time demonstrating ignorance of basics.

Yes, you do, and yes, you are. You are supporting a conclusion based on a trial which ignored all parameters of the treatment you are claiming it invalidates. That's about as basic as one can get.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
I did not say that you have given medical advice.

I have shown medical reports that show that zinc acts as a general antiviral and that hydroxychloroquine tends to cause an uptake of zinc in cells.

After reading some stuff, you have spoken authoritatively on immune response.

On the other hand, some posters, including yourself, have made statements indicating that newly released clinical trials are the final word on treatments they did not even test.

I have made no such claim.

a reply to: Phage

I did not say that you have given medical advice.

You insinuated.

After reading some stuff, you have spoken authoritatively on immune response.

As have you. People do that when experts say things that make sense. Some people do it when pundits make no sense.

I have made no such claim.

You insinuated.

TheRedneck