Hydroxychloroquine Still Doesn’t Do Anything, New Data Shows

This dynamic review of 82 studies (47 peer-reviewed) is worth reviewing...it works.

Dynamic HCQ trial analysis...

a reply to: whereislogic

Thanks for filling me in I agree with what you said .


By mail ?

Wow

a reply to: TheRedneck

The pattern holds true for Southern Guardian for the first 18 pages of this thread as well, until finally on page 19 he shares the first direct link to an actual study (not counting the one about adding zinc to HCQ or CQ, that one wasn't used as an argument against HCQ). Sadly though, the study is irrelevant to the title of this thread (it was about prevention; much like the one referred as as a "Gold Standard Clinical Trial" that I've been talking about in my latest commentary).

Not that linking to the actual studies the news articles are about is going to improve the situation, their quality and the honesty or dishonesty of those involved in publishing it. The dubious nature of the false impressions attached to them by either the authors themselves or the news article writers reporting on it and adding their own exaggeration, taking it that little step further, like calling it "Gold Standard" when the data was supposedly collected via the internet as in Dr. David Boulware's publication (published by another notoriously propagandistic and deceptive publishing company, the NEJM; who are just as dishonest as the Lancet about this whole HCQ business).

Another example of NEJM's double standards and dishonest publications is mentioned at 2:20 below, on Remdesivir (I do recommend the context before 2:20):

So notice how Squawker in General never actually answers questions directly, tends to completely miss the point and is very argumentative.

Do you think SG's a troll or just after reply clicks? Perhaps the more replies he gets the bigger the pay he receives.

Not going to give him the reward of a reply directly anymore.

So Squawker, your Experts want you to take a vaccine - hoping you are front and center volunteering for the vaccine - whether it works or not, you faith in their words shouldn't matter. Go be a Gold Standard RCT volunteer.

He's absolutely a troll puzzled2 , and i would never reply to him,just a wee condescending troll!! ROTFL a reply to: puzzled2

originally posted by: TheRedneck
And... since we're going to do the "proper sources" dance... I went back through the last three pages of Southern Guardian's posts and looked at his "proper sources."

Not a single source was to a study! Not one! In three freakin' pages of links!

Here they are:

• Dr. Birx: Randomized trials show benefit for remdesivir, but not hydroxychloroquine
  
  linked from this post; A news article from Fox News... that is not a study.
  
  
• Dr. Fauci says all the ‘valid’ scientific data shows hydroxychloroquine isn’t effective in treating coronavirus
  
  linked from this post; Another news article from CNBC this time. Not a study.
  
  
• The World Health Organisation: Studies show hydroxychloroquine does not have clinical benefits in treating COVID-19
  
  linked from this post; A statement from the World Health organization. Not a study.
  
  
• WHO says trials show malaria and HIV drugs don't cut Covid-19 hospital deaths

linked from this post; A news article from the Guardian. Not a study.

[url=https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/06/20/881260031/nih-halts-hydroxychloroquine-study-says-unlikely-to-help-covid-19-] NIH Halts Hydroxychloroquine Study; Says 'Unlikely' To Help COVID-19 Patients

That's weird... try it again:

NIH Halts Hydroxychloroquine Study; Says 'Unlikely' To Help COVID-19 Patients

linked from this post; An NPR news article. Not a study.

Looks like even the website is getting disgusted with your propaganda.

Brit ish Heart Foundation: Why hydroxychloroquine isn't a "miracle cure" for coronavirus

linked from this post; A statement from the British Heart Foundation... editorialized, no less. Not a study.

Do not use hydroxychloroquine for COVID: National Taskforce (Australia)

linked from this post; An impressive-looking news article about statements made by a member of the Australian Covid-19 Task Force. Not a study, though.

Stella Immanuel - the doctor behind unproven coronavirus cure claim

Linked from this post; An editorial "hit piece" from the BBC. Not a study.

F auc i: Henry Ford Health's hydroxychloroquine study 'flawed'

Linked from this post; A news article from the Detroit News. Not a study.

Repeated in this post. I guess for emphasis?

Fauci Leads Trump by 26% in Coronavirus Response Rating: Poll

Linked from this post; A political article from Newsweek this time. Still not a study.

Dr. Anthony Fauci first-pitch baseball card breaks Topps record for sales in just 24 hours

Linked from this post; Oh, a human interest article from USA Today about the worst pitch known in the history of mankind. Definitely not a study.

source

Linked from this post; A Wikipedia page about a personality! Not a study.

A flawed Covid-19 study gets the White House’s attention — and the FDA may pay the price

Linked from this post; This is a new one... STAT. Still not a study.

Penn Launches Trial to Evaluate Hydroxychloroquine to Treat

Linked from this post; At least this time it's a medical news article. Written by a reporter, not a medical professional. Not a study.There's your 14 most recent links (one of them twice!), spanning three pages and 30 hours, and not a single one of them go to any study whatsoever. Southern Guardian, you've got a lot of nerve now complaining about needing "proper sources." How about YOU provide some "proper sources" to support YOUR position. No one cares, especially no one who has more than two neurons operating at the moment, what reporters think.

This is ATS, not Twitter. We have standards.

TheRedneck







Good work mate, thank you for clearing all those links up.

I submitted the Penn state study originally , I know full well it's not a study but a preemptive article about the study I am excited for the study to conclude. It's a true double blind study.

a reply to: whereislogic

My problem is, I suppose, that I automatically give a benefit of the doubt to someone on ATS. I assume they are at least going to show some intellectual honesty in debate; that is what i am used to in the past (and the lack of that is what has caused ATS to devolve into a shouting match instead of intellectual debates). When I first engaged Southern Guardian, it was with an intent to show that the studies he was referencing were not applicable to the claims he was trying to dispute.

You know, reason, logic, a little online searching... that sort of thing.

What I received was tangential drivel and unsubstantiated claims.

Themove1904 is right... he's just a just a troll with an agenda. I doubt he even believes the crap he is spewing. The one bright side is that this thread has cemented his name into my memory, so the next time we meet in a thread, I will know what I am dealing with: just a bunch of nothing.

TheRedneck

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Good work mate, thank you for clearing all those links up.

Glad to help. I keep referring him back to the two links I posted, one concerning the general antiviral properties of zinc and the other confirming that hydroxychloroquine regulates zinc at the cellular level. Those are actual studies. His response was "I can't read those."

Which of course led to the conversation devolving into chaos.

I really appreciate your contributions as well. You have actual experience with the subject, and that is invaluable knowledge. You even taught me a few things!

I submitted the Penn state study originally , I know full well it's not a study but a preemptive article about the study I am excited for the study to conclude. It's a true double blind study.

It's common for a proposed in-process study to be published as a news article, usually in a medical news venue. You presented it as such. Southern Guardian presented his news articles as completed, "Gold Standard" studies, then had the unmitigated gall to claim similar links submitted by others were not up to his standards.

They exceeded his standards; he has no standards to not meet.

TheRedneck

I just have to point out... Hurricane Laura is now a Cat 4 hurricane bearing down on Louisiana and Texas. That can't be right. Two days ago we had a "scientific consensus" that she would make landfall as a Cat 2. I mean, I guess the scientists voted and everything! The science is settled, dammit!

TheRedneck

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
Not a single source was to a study!

Yes, they're reporting studies with references. How else do you expect these things be reported to the public? The studies themselves? That require a medical background and firm understanding? Silly.

Now if you have actual experts disputing what's been specifically reported, I'll listen.

a reply to: TheRedneck

That link from Penn state is not from me.

Also, above.

Please take note.

42 pages in, and the same individuals continue to insist upon their unqualified interpretations, while dismissing any reference toward studies and medical professionals (many of whom are on the ground, researching this pandemic) saying otherwise. There's also this continious referral to known flawed studies that paint HCQ in a positive light as a treatment against COVID-19.

This will continue to be such, and they will continue to be reminded of where they stand, and where they are wrong.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

How else do you expect these things be reported to the public? The studies themselves? That require a medical background and firm understanding?

Yes, if they are to be taken as a "Gold Standard."

I can read them. Why can't you?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Southern Guardian

That link from Penn state is not from me.

I linked every instance to the post from you where it was given. Are you claiming someone hacked your account?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Please take note.

42 pages in, and the same individuals continue to insist upon their unqualified interpretations, while dismissing any reference toward studies and medical professionals (many of whom are on the ground, researching this pandemic) saying otherwise.

Please take note.

42 pages in and Southern Guardian has not presented any studies, only links to news reports about studies. Yet, he continues to ignore actual studies which have been referenced and accuses others of not living up to the high standards he himself refuses to live up to. He also has now stated twice that he himself is unable to even read an actual study while trying to dismiss those who are able to do so. And finally, he has dismissed another member for reporting actual on the ground experiences treating the pandemic.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
Please take note.

42 pages in, and the same individuals continue to insist upon their unqualified interpretations, while dismissing any reference toward studies and medical professionals (many of whom are on the ground, researching this pandemic) saying otherwise. There's also this continious referral to known flawed studies that paint HCQ in a positive light as a treatment against COVID-19.

This will continue to be such, and they will continue to be reminded of where they stand, and where they are wrong.

Like I said you've made up your mind , you don't care what we say .

I tell you this though , when they finish that double blind Penn State study and it comes out positive . There will be not a damn thing you can say against it, though I'm sure you will try.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Just out of curiosity (and expecting this to be a rhetorical question), are you capable of reading a medical study?

I'm pretty sure shooterbrody and puzzled2 are as well...

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I can work it out there or abouts

I can even read the ones that do not go along with my preconceived notions, unlike other people.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

That's what I thought. I'm sure others will be here soon to verify that they, too, can manage to read a medical study.

But we're not intelligent enough to comment on the studies we can read, while Southern Guardian is intelligent enough to comment on the studies he admits he cannot read.

Something seems a little... backward... here to me.

TheRedneck

I had a brain injury a few years back but can still read and understand a medical study TheRedneck,Oh and i can also spot a troll from 100 paces , i would add the extra derogatory abbreviation that i usually put on here, the one that i learned from SG , that he uses so casually to mock and condescend but its really beneath me a reply to: TheRedneck