It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dr. Anthony Fauci Must Be Fired (2005 Chloroquine Study) ....updated

page: 14
67
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2020 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage



Knows what? That it has nothing to do with COVID-19 and it has nothing to do with humans? Maybe. What's your point?


The death till going up, the lock down getting harder. All while a safe, cheep and effective solution exists. Do you really want to kill millions?



But what was this? finally admitting that something does exist outside the atmosphere


IDK? About a month ago. Tried searching for 'thanks phage'. Cannot find it. Maybe it was just dreaming. Maybe the men in black got to us? It is interesting that you care more about this than people dying. Anyway, carry on.




posted on Aug, 11 2020 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Pladuim

People get better without the treatment too.
Thus the term "anecdotal."


Thus the term "barely virulent"



posted on Aug, 11 2020 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: kwakakev

So nothing then.


Have you ever heard of a curious mind and on the job training?

They are rare in this day and age, but some do have curious minds. Some are quite capable of thinking for themselves.



posted on Aug, 11 2020 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

I would not be her otherwise. Already had a heap of psy ops on 9/11. Gas light me, whatever. Show me the data or get bent.



posted on Aug, 11 2020 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: NorthOfStuff

People get better without treatment. The vast majority of people do so, in fact.
There is no way to determine if their treatments had any effect at all.


Some people don't get sick at all it seems. Their "symptoms" are so weak they don't even know they had it.

That renders your post essentially irrelevant.



posted on Aug, 11 2020 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Yeah, good point. Has been a huge psy op. IDK, Phage is not what he use to be, was a sharp bugger, then that whole FBI, CIA game. It would suck.

Ok, so we have a big population that is brainwashed, an internet with some holes, an online community that still kinda has it together, for the moment. Nov 4 will tell what the long game is.

Yeah, I feel kinda weak too? This lock down sucks. I will be irreleaent when I am dead, not there yet.



posted on Aug, 11 2020 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev


The death till going up, the lock down getting harder. All while a safe, cheep and effective solution exists. Do you really want to kill millions?


What are you talking about?


The 2005 study wasn’t published by the NIH and didn’t prove chloroquine was effective against “COVID-1” because that’s not a real disease.

The study found that chloroquine could inhibit the spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome in animal cell culture, and the authors said more research was needed.

There are currently no approved medications or treatments for COVID-19.


It's been debunked and the author admitted on this very thread he was wrong.

The facts are out about HCQ and it's clear. It's not an effective treatment against COVID19.

The World Health Organisation: Studies show hydroxychloroquine does not have clinical benefits in treating COVID-19

PolitiFact - Yes, at least five randomized controlled studies say hydroxychloroquine doesn’t help

MedRxIV, HCQ findings

Chloroquine does not help against the coronavirus


research findings by scientists from the German Primate Center (DPZ) in Göttingen, the Charité in Berlin and the University Hospital in Bonn now speak a very clear language: Chloroquine is not suitable for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infections. It simply does not work.


Authors retract hydroxychloroquine study

WHO says trials show malaria and HIV drugs don't cut Covid-19 hospital deaths

Hydroxychloroquine flunks Phase III trial in mild-to-moderate Covid-19

NIH halts clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine

Birx: FDA 'has been very clear' on its concerns about using hydroxychloroquine as COVID-19 treatment

NIH halts clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine

Large-scale study finds Turkey’s favoured COVID-19 treatment linked to sudden death

Trump Coronavirus Taskforce member, Fauci: Science shows hydroxychloroquine is not effective

Brazilian chloroquine study halted after high dose proved lethal for some patients

Basel study: hydroxychloroquine not effective

Three big studies dim hopes that hydroxychloroquine can treat or prevent COVID-19

spreading misinformation.



posted on Aug, 11 2020 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
Seems the data of the new study on which cells it enters points to chloroquine having no effect in the lungs. So the data is essentially useless and this whole debate was pretty much for nothing.

Oh well. I learned something today.

Thanks for the post.

Its good you accepted you were wrong, but consider how you came into the thread...wrong information immediately defaming a doctor who is trying to help and rallying up others to get angry also at inaccurate data
...and it most likely won't go to the hoax bin...it fits the narrative around here too well.

This is politics...this is religion...neither have a place in science. It sucks that a pandemic has become a pol talking point in the USA and articles come out to purposefully mislead people.

Be careful when making threads to fully understand and crossreference things...I think there is enough bad information on all sides being pushed.



posted on Aug, 11 2020 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
spreading misinformation.


...but Trump said it might work...
so therefore that...Trumps...all other sciences...bigly
edit on 11-8-2020 by SaturnFX because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2020 @ 01:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian



The facts are out about HCQ and it's clear. It's not an effective treatment against COVID19.


I disagree.

Who website

More decisive research is needed to assess its value in patients with mild disease or as pre- or post-exposure prophylaxis in patients exposed to COVID-19.


Why are efforts to undertake such a study blocked in Melbourne?

c19study.com has so far compiled 120 different studies, many showing positive results from all around the world.



posted on Aug, 12 2020 @ 01:49 AM
link   
originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: Southern Guardian


I disagree.


Disagree on what? That source from the WHO where that exerpt was found is entitled the below:

Studies show hydroxychloroquine does not have clinical benefits in treating COVID-19

It sits under the mythbusters section for the WHO website.

Can you read? Can this not be any clearer?

The fact it said more 'decisive' research over other combinations in use with HCQ means nothing to the fact of the matter here, that there's to date, with all the relevant studies, conclusive evidence that HCQ is ineffective against Covid19.

"More" research doesn't prove HCQ is effective.
"Probably" is just speculative. It means nothing to the facts we currently have in front of us.


Why are efforts to undertake such a study blocked in Melbourne?


Again, another sourceless claim from you. You have habit of doing this, despite the fact you've been caught out using misleading and partisan sources.


c19study.com has so far compiled 120 different studies, many showing positive results


A. It's already been demonstrated that the C19study source is linked directly to a partisan poster on Twitter, bringing well into question the agenda of that site and,

B. You were given a chance to pull up one of those positive studies from that very same website to prove the legitimacy of the data. You're clearly not interested given you've willfully ignored it.

You're not interested in having a clean and honest debate, clearly.



posted on Aug, 12 2020 @ 02:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian



You're not interested in having a clean and honest debate, clearly.


Correct. i just want to get straight to the facts. I am glad to hear that c19study.com has raised some questions for you.

Since you look to be having trouble accessing this data, here is one link.

A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19


COVID-19 cases are reduced by [49%, 29%, 16%] respectively when taken within ~[70, 94, 118] hours of exposure (including shipping delay). The treatment delay-response relationship is significant at p=0.002. PEP delayed treatment RCT.



posted on Aug, 12 2020 @ 02:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Since a vaccine is just a few months away, and the U.S. Covid-19 hospitalization numbers steadily declining, HCQ will return to obscurity soon enough.



posted on Aug, 12 2020 @ 04:52 AM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev

From your source


After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days after exposure.


Thank you for actually providing a study though. The conclusion section was readable. Unfortunately, it says the opposite.

It also appears the trial continued, testing continued, and there was further study, but can't find any updates.



posted on Aug, 12 2020 @ 04:53 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust


Since a vaccine is just a few months away


Yep, Fauci speculated early 2021, which is nothing short of impressive.

Maybe then this nonsense about HCQ will stop.



posted on Aug, 12 2020 @ 05:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Beneficial effects exerted by hydroxychloroquinein treatingCOVID-19patientsvia protecting multiple organs


Retrospective 2,882 patients in China, median age 62, 278 receiving HC Q, median 10 days post hospitalization, showing that HC Q treatment can reduce systemic inflammation and inhibit the cytokine storm, thus protecting multiple organs from inflammatory injuries, such as detoxification in the liver and attenuation of cardiac injury


As for the vaccination option, do you have any data that can prove vaccinations do not contribute to autism? A lot of people have been looking and cannot find it.

Vaccinations and Autism



posted on Aug, 12 2020 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev

Now I'm really sorry I posted this thread.

Really, autism vaccines? You want to prove a negative?

This post is pretty imbecilic.
edit on 8 12 2020 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2020 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn



Really, autism vaccines? You want to prove a negative?


1 - 2 = -1. More accurately it is the CDC making the claim that vaccinations do not cause autism. The Autism Institute just want to see the data that either confirms or denies these claims to help the families struggling with these issues.

I agree to invest all ones hope in a solution that does more harm than good is imbecilic.



posted on Aug, 12 2020 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev


As for the vaccination option, do you have any data that can prove vaccinations do not contribute to autism?


You have got to be kidding me.

Yes, I have nothing further to add here.

ATS has really gone down to the dumps.



posted on Aug, 12 2020 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust




numbers steadily declining,

Yeah. Did that a few months ago too.
covidtracking.com...

Maybe it won't be so bad when things cool down. Maybe it will just disappear.
Yeah, that's the ticket. It will disappear in the fall. Or maybe in the winter.

edit on 8/12/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join